HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3555 Filed 08.05.99ecc)P y
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
e 4'
o BOARDDECIS ONEALS R E C E 1 V r D
M/1TTA ,, 4' 99 IlllG ~5 P 31.$.• 4
ccd
Nei Ct.ERtS & I lit-A '-.
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: August 5, 1999
PETITION NO: #3555
HEARING DATE: July 22, 1999
PETITIONER: Donald Kurson,Trustee of Kings Way Trust
PROPERTY: 30 Kings Circuit, Yarmouth, MA
Map: 134 Parcel: 60.3,60.2,61 Zoning District: R40
Map: 142 Parcel: l thru 17
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, Joseph Sarnosky, Diane
Moudouris, Audrey Miller,Richard St. George.
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.
Prior Relief and Relief Requested.
In compliance with the existing Decisions of the Board of Appeals as to the project commonly
known as Kings Way, this application was submitted to the Yarmouth Board of Appeals by
Donald K. Kurson, et al, Trustees of Kings Way Properties Realty Trust, under Declaration of
Trust Dated March 31, 1993,as successor developer,seeking an extension modification of special
permit and related variances, granted by the Yarmouth Board of Appeals in its Decision of
October 16, 1975, upon Petition No.:1321 - Document No.: 202276, of Oak Harbour
Associates, the original Petitioner, and extended by the Board of Appeals in its Decision of April
13, 1984 (Petition No.: 2048 - Document No.: 337150) by Light House Associates, a prior
successor to the original Petitioner, as further modified and supplemented by the Board of
Appeals in its Decisions of January 23, 1986(Petition No.: 2268 - Document No.: 394798),July
9, 1987 (Petition No.: 2448 - Document No.: 441210), October 29, 1987 (Petitioner No.: 2491
Document No.: 451751)and January 29, 1988 (Petition No.: 2511 - Document No.: 456783)
upon the Petitions of the Green Company, Inc., a subsequent prior successor developer, and as
further extended by the Board of Appeals upon the Petition of the current Petitioner by Decision
made April 28, 1994 (Petition No.: 3096 - Document No.: 616075 and November 10, 1994
Petition No.: 3152 -Document No.: 630182, all heretofore and hereafter collectively referred to
as the Extant Decision.
1-
In its Decision in application 3096(Document No.: 616075)the Board of Appeals stated:
Inasmuch as the developer has proceeded to develop quality infrastructures(such as construction
of the Golf Course, Club House and Pro Shop) quickly, but has proceeded to develop housing
moderately and appropriately, extensions in time for temporary public use of these facilities may
be granted beyond the original eight (8) years as requested. Such an extension is hereby granted
from May 26, 1996 through December 31, 1999 provided, however, that the developer may,
during the period between December ], 1998 and December 1, 1999, by appearance before this
Board at an advertised public hearing, stating the reasons therefor, request an extension or
extensions of this variance expiration date. In all other respects the variance remains in
accordance with the language of the extant Decision as originally written and/or modified."
In accordance with said Decision,the Applicant requests:
1.A further extension and modification of full public access at Kings Way to the Golf
Club Facilities and Golf Course through December 31, 2002 and to thereafter
allow access to owner members and additionally to allow public access
permanently to a maximum 200 non-owner annual or permanent (individual or
spousal/family) memberships, the total number of said memberships in any one
year to be at the discretion of the then organization of Kings Way Golf Club
Charter Members or its successor or assigns, but subject to said maximums.
In all other respects the Extant Decision shall remain in accordance with the language of the
Extant Decision as modified.
Further,the applicant requests:
2.Insofar as a Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-Law Section 103.2, for use N6
Public Golf Course, is required pursuant to Zoning By-Law Section 202.5, same is
requested.
3.A waiver of the Board's Rule that its plan be less than two (2)years old;and
4.Such other relief that the Board of Appeals deems meet and just;and
5.A waiver of strict compliance with the rules and regulations of the Board of
Appeals where it may deem such appropriate.,
Plans.
The Petitioner has submitted plans entitled: Plan No.: 1 -Land Court Plan 34279-Q, sheet 1 of 4
Facts and Extension History.
The petitioner represents that the Kings Way Development was originally permitted in 1975 by
this Board by the grant of an open space village development special permit and a series of
variances, all as set forth in the Petition No. 1321 Decisions. In 1984, (Petition No. 2048) the
then Developer sought and received an extension of the permit's then ten year life from October
16, 1985 through October 16, 1990. Within said Decision this board further clarified that the
2-
public use of the golf course and its related facilities was, at a minimum,intended to be eight years
from the date the golf course was available for play. The golf course became available for play on
May 27, 1988. Thus, the initial permitted life of public play on and use of the golf course facilities
was through May 26, 1996. By Decision in Petition#3096, in 1994, full public access to the golf
club was extended through December 31, 1999 with the proviso that the petition could return
between December 1, 1998 and December 1, 1999 and seek a further extension of public play.
The Applicant is within the proper time frame for further extension. The current proposed
extension for full public access is through December 31, 2002 and to thereafter limit access to
owner members and additionally to allow public access permanently to a maximum of 200 non-
owner annual (individual or spousal/famity)memberships,the total number of said memberships in
any one year to be at the discretion of the then organization of the Kings Way Golf Charter
Members or its successors or assigns,but subject to said maximum.
The petitioner contends that the stated reasons for the variance within the original permit were
valid as to the original grant of the variance and remain valid as to the proposed extension. Thus,
the criteria for grant of the variance extension and modification are also satisfied.
The requested use of the golf course, club house, and pro shop by non-residents during the
construction phase is designed and requested only to assure the same level of patronage and
financial stability of the facility during early years as will occur according to plans when the
development is completed. As such, the variance should have no significant impact at all on the
neighborhood.
The petitioner contends that the failure to grant the requested relief would cause a substantial
hardship upon the Petitioner as well as current and future homeowners within the project.
Further, the King's Way project is unique in Yarmouth. Multi-family residential development is
no longer a permitted use north of Route 6 generally, nor within the Project's Zoning District
specifically.
In particular, the petitioner observes that the project specifically planed a multi-phased
construction, where by each phase of residential units would be constructed only when they were
ready to be sold. However,in order to provide the planned amenities for the residents purchasing
at the early phases, and to provide the necessary infrastructure,these portions of the development
were constructed within the first phases. Because of the size of the project and length of time
necessary for the completion of all phases, public play at the golf course was considered to be a
reasonable interim accommodation,to help assure the economic viability of the early amenities.
Now, because the later phases of construction have been delayed, the need for this public play
period also needs to be extended.
As for the post-construction(build out) proposal to allow limited non-resident use of the course
facilities, by members(not by the general public) the petitioner represents that this is necessary in
order to assure the ongoing viability of the course because of two factors.
First, a lower than anticipated percentage of residents have opted to take advantage of the course
membership opportunity. Only 230 memberships are presently in place among the residents,
3-
whereas approximately 450 total memberships had been anticipated(at build-out).
Second, the total number of units to be built has been reduced from 750 to 725, thus further
reducing the resident play below planned levels.
The petitioners therefore propose to be allowed to sell private memberships to non-residents,after
the completion of the project and after the end of allowed "public play", in order to supplement
the pool of members supporting the course.
Abutters spoke in opposition, expressing concern for the poor behavior of some users of the
course, affecting their properties (surrounding the course). These abutters feel that residents of
Kings Way will be better neighbors, and better behaved, bringing a vested interest in the
development and neighborhood. They also objected to the proximity of some holes to their
private property lines,and to the early morning hours of course maintenance and equipment use.
The petitioners have admittedly been working with the neighbors to address these complaints,but
have not been successful in doing so,to date.
Residents of Kings Way spoke in favor of the proposal.
Concerns were expressed by Board members on several points. First,the members felt that it was
incumbent upon the petitioners to work with their neighbors to address these directly adverse
impacts upon their properties. The Board members tended to agree that the non-resident golfers
are more likely to be less considerate of abutter's interests than would the residents. Secondly,
some members expressed concerns that the lack of resident "members" was in part due to the
marketing practices of the developers. Golf course "charter memberships" are apparently only
available at the time of the initial sale of a unit by the developer. If a unit purchaser does not take
advantage of the membership buy-in at that time,it is not generally available to hint/her,nor to the
subsequent owner of that "unit". While the practice may be well motivated and have an element
of fairness to those who do choose to buy-in early, it also has had the apparent effect of limiting
resident memberships, and thereby creating the currently anticipated need for new non-resident
memberships. The Board members felt that, in the spirit of the original approval of this project,
greater effort was needed to make memberships available to the residents, in the long run, rather
than relying on non-resident membership sales.
After due consideration, the Board finds that some extension of general public play may be
granted, without causing substantial detriment to the public and without causing undue nuisance,
hazard or congestion, provided the petitioners address the current adverse impact upon the close
abutters. The Board also finds that, following the build-out of the development, and the end of
general public play, limited non-resident memberships for the course would be warranted, given
the changes in the development which have occurred, and the unique nature of this planned
residential development.
For the reasons originally relied upon by the Board in the granting of the prior relief, and because
of the changes of construction which have occurred since then, the Board finds that a
modification of the prior relief may be granted, within the original project's intent and purpose,by
allowing the requested post-construction build-out memberships.
4-
Therefore,the following motions and votes were taken:
1)Motion by Mr. Sarnosky, seconded by Mr. St. George, to grant the requested
extension of general public play at the golf course facilities, until December 31,
2000, on the understanding that, after July 1, 2000, the petitioner may, if
necessary, apply for a further extension of this permit. However, it is the express
intention of the motion that no further extension of public play would be granted
unless satisfactory efforts have been made to address the concerns of the
residential abutters, especially concerning un-cooperative and disrespectful golfers,
and disturbances of abutters with early morning course work (and machinery
operation), and due to the impact on the abutters by the particular placement of
certain golf tees and holes very proximate to the lot lines, and the proposed
placement of remote sanitary facilities throughout the golf course. The members
voted unanimously in favor of this motion.
2) A second motion was made by Mr. Sarnosky, seconded by Mr. St. George, to
allow the petitioner to sell memberships to the course to non-residents of Kings
Way,after the expiration of public play, on the condition that:
a)the total number of resident and non-resident memberships not exceed 450,
b)the maximum number of non-resident memberships not exceed 200,
c) after the end of public play and completion of residential construction, residents
of Kings Way be given preference for such memberships, so as to limit the need for
the sale of non-resident memberships,
d) and on the condition, as represented by the petitioner, that the total number
of residential units have been reduced from 750 to a maximum of 725 for the
facility.
The members voted unanimously in favor of this motion.
3) A motion was made by Mr. St. George, seconded by Mr. Sarnosky,to grant to the
petitioner a waiver from the Boards rules and regulations, so as to allow the
petition to be based on the golf course and site plan more than 2 years old. The
members voted unanimously in favor of this 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 §17 and must be filed within 20 days
after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk.
David S. Reid, Jerk
5-
of 'r' TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
y1.11:s
APPLICATION FOR HEARING
99 JUN 30 f ,54
Appeal#: 3 Jr 55 5 Hearing Date: 7'a oa 19 9 Fed 11 1. 2.0
Applicant: Donald Kurson, Trustee of Kings Way Trust et al
Full Name- including d/b/a)
SEE ATTACHED
Address) zip) Telephone Number)
and is the (check one) fa Owner 0 Tenant 0 Prospective Buyer 0 Other Interested Party
Property: This application relates to the property located at: Kings Circuit, Yarmouthport, MA
which is also shown on the new Assessor's Map: SEE ATTACHED
as Parcel: old Map & Lot #Zoning District:
Project: The applicant seeks permission to undertake the following construction/use/activity :(give a brief
description of the project. i.e.: "add a 10' by 15' deck to the front of our house" or "change the use of the existing
building on the property"): The applicant seeks permission to extend full public access
at Kings Way Golf Club Course and Facilities through December 31, 2002 and to
and to thereafter limit memberships to owner members and limit public access
permanently to a maximum 200 nonowner annual memberships.
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant seeks the following relief from the Board of Appeals:
SEE ATTACHED
1) REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OR THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR dated attach a copy of the decision appealed from). State the reason for
reversal and the ruling which you request the Board to make.
SEE ATTACHED
2) X SPECIAL PERMIT under § of the Yarmouth Zoning By-law and/or for a use
authorized upon Special Permit in the "Use Regulation Schedule" §202.5
3)x VARIANCE from the Yarmouth Zoning By-law. Specify all sections of the by-law from which relief is
requested, and, as to each section, specify the relief sought: SEE ATTACHED
Section: Relief sought:
Section: Relief sought:
Section: Relief sought:
SEE ATTACHEDAdditionalcomments:
FACT SHEET
This sheet must be completed and filed at the time of application.
Owner of Property(if other than applicant) N/A
Full Name)
Address)
Telephone Number)
How long has the owner had title to the above premises: SEE ATTACHED
ndive title reference if available)Multi-Family Dwellings an
Use Classification: Existing: Golf Course
s. 202.5 # A3 and N6
Proposed:
s. 202.5 # A3 and N6
Is the property vacant: No How long has it been vacant:n/a
Lot Information (if available) Area: SEE ATTACHED SEE ATTACHED
Subdivision/Plan Reference:
Is this property within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District: Yes No x
Other Department(s) Reviewing Project: Indicate the other Town Departments which are/have/or will reviewthisproject, and indicate the status of their review process: Ongoing Site Plan Review
Repetitive Petition: Is this a re-application: NO
If yes, do you have Planning Board Approval:
Prior Relief: If the property in question has been the subject of prior application to the Board of Appeals or ZoningAdministrator, indicate the Appeal number(s) and other available information:
ShE ATTACHED
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Please use the space below to provide any additional information which youfeelshouldbeincludedinyourapplication:
SEE ATTACHED
DONALD KURSON, TRUSTEE
Applicant's Signature/Attorney Owner's Signature ward J. Sweeney, Atty.Edward J. Sweeney, Atty. for App.25 Mid-Tech Drive, Suite C for Applicant
W. Yarmouth, MA 02673
5 0 8 7 7 5-3 4 3 Site Plan Review
4 f Required CompletedBuildingInspector's Signature 0 Yes l No 0 Yes 0 No
ATTACHMENT
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Hearing
Appeal # : Hearing Date: :L/ /fj`5 Fee: %//,
Applicant and Owner:
Donald K. Kurson, et al, Trustees of Kings Way Properties
Realty Trust, Under Declaration of Trust Dated March 31, 1993 ,
recorded as Document No. 578, 921, with an Address of 46 Glen
Avenue,, Newton, Massachusetts 02159, and Donald Kurson,
Trustee et al, of the Kings Way Trust, being an Amendment of
the Oak Harbour Open Space and Facilities Management Board
Trust as Amended by Trust Agreement dated May 12 , 1987 and
Recorded as Document No. 433670, with an Address of 46 Glen
Avenue, Newton, Massachusetts 02159 .
Property: This application relates to the property located at:
Kings Circuit, Yarmouthport, Massachusetts, Zoning District R-40 .
Assessors Map Parcels
134 60 .3, 60 .2 61
142 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ,
11, 12, 13, 14 ,
15, 16, 17
and/or other maps and parcels as may be shown as Kings Way on the
amended records of the office of the Yarmouth Assessors. Said
property and development is commonly known as Kings Way, an open
space village development on a parcel of land containing
approximately 194 acres, on the north side of Route 6A, Yarmouth
Port, Massachusetts, as shown on Land Court Plans and having
permitted uses as noted as follows:
Certificate of Permitted
Lot No. Plan No. Title No. Crse
41-A 34279-F-1 C-153 Housing
51 34279-G C-279 Housing
88 34279-N C-240 Housing
69 34279-L 136264 Housing
89 34279-Q 136264 Housing
94 34279-Q 136264 Housing
95 34279-Q 136264 Housing
96 34279-Q 136264 Housing
Certificate of Permitted
Lot No. Plan No. Title No. Use
97 34279-Q 136264 Housing
98 34279-Q 136264 Housing
14 38776-B 136382 Community
43 34279-G 136382 Service
44 34279-G 136382 Open Space
49 34279-G 136382 Open Space
55 34279-H 136382 Open Space
80 34279-M 136382 Community
92 34279-P 136382 Open Space
93 34279-P 136382 Open Space
Project: The Applicant seeks permission to extend full public
access at Kings Way Golf Club Course and Facilities through
December 31, 2002 and to thereafter limit membership to owner
members and limit public access permanently to a maximum 200 non-
owner annual memberships.
Prior Relief and Relief Requested: The Applicant seeks the
following relief from the Board of Appeals:
In Compliance with the existing Decisions of the Board of Appeals
as to the project commonly known as Kings Way, this application is
submitted to the Yarmouth Board of Appeals by Donald K. Kurson, et
al, Trustees of Kings Way Properties Realty Trust, under
Declaration of Trust dated March 31, 1993, as successor developer,
seeking an extension modification of special permit and related
variances, granted by the Yarmouth Board of Appeals in its Decision .
of October 16, 1975, upon Petition No. 1321 - Document No. 202276,
of Oak Harbor Associates, the original Petitioner, and extended by
the Board of Appeals in its Decision of April 13, 1984 (Petition
No. 2048 - Document No. 337150) by Light House Associates, a prior
successor to the original Petitioner, as further modified and
supplemented by the Board of Appeals in its Decisions of January
23, 1986 (Petition No. 2268 - Document No. 394798 ) , July 9, 1987
Petition No. 2448 - Document No. 441210) , October 29, 1987
Petition No. 2491 - Document No. 451751) and January 29, 1988
Petition No. 2511 - Document No. 456783) upon the Petitions of The
Green Company, Inc. , a subsequent prior successor
developer, and as further extended by the Board of Appeals upon
Petition of the current Petitioner by Decision made April 28 , 1994
Petition No. 3096 - Document No. 616075 and November 10 , 1994
Petition No. 3152 - Document No. 630182 , all heretofore and
hereinafter collectively referred to as the Extant Decision.
In its Decisions in application 3096 (Document No. 616075) the
Board of Appeals stated:
Inasmuch as the developer has proceeded to
develop quality infrastructures (such as
construction of the Golf Course, Club House
and Pro shop) quickly, but has proceeded to
develop housing moderately and appropriately,
extensions in time for temporary public use of
these facilities may be granted beyond the
original eight ( 8) years as requested. Such
an extension is hereby granted from May 26,
1996 through December 31, 1999 provided,
however, that the developer may, during the
period between December 1, 1998 and December
1, 1999, by appearance before this Board at an
advertised public hearing, stating the reasons
therefor, request an extension or extensions
of this variance expiration date. In all
other respects the variance remains in.
accordance with the language of the Extant
Decision as originally written and/or
modified. "
In accordance with said Decision, the applicant requests:
1) A further extension and modification of full public
access at Kings Way to the Golf Club Facilities and Golf
Course through December 31, 2002 and to thereafter allow
access to owner members and additionally to allow public
access permanently to a maximum 200 non-owner annual
individual or spousal/family) memberships, the total
number of said memberships in any one year to be at the
discretion of the then organization of Kings Way Golf
Club Charter Members or its successors or assigns, but
subject to said maximum.
In all other respects the extant Decision shall remain in
accordance with the language of the Extant Decision as modified.
Further, the applicant requests:
2 ) Insofar as a Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-Law
Section 103.2, for use N6 Public Golf Course, is required
pursuant to Zoning By-Law Section 202 .5, same is
requested.
3) A waiver of the Board's Rule that its plan be less than
two (2 ) years old; and
4 ) Such other relief that the Board of Appeals deems meet
and just; and
5) A waiver of strict compliance with the rules and
regulations of the Board of Appeals where it may deem
such appropriate.
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS Apr
MINUTES
HEARING DATE: July 22, 1999
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, Joseph
Sarnosky, Diane Moudouris, Richard St. George, Audrey Miller.
PETITIONER #3555: Donald Kurson, Trustee of Kings Way Trust et al, Kings Circuit,
Yarmouthport,MA. Assessor's Map: 134, Parcel: 60.3, 60.2, 60.1, Assessor's Map: 142, Parcel:
1 through 17, Zoning District: R40. The applicant seeks modification of Special Permits and or
Variances to extend full public access at the golf course and facilities to December 31, 2002 and to
limit 200 non-owners annual memberships.
Mr. Reid opened the hearing by reading the legal ad. Attorney Edward Sweeney represented the
applicant and David Kalagaris represented the Green Company, and Ray Bishop the Golf Club
Manager at Kings Way, and representatives of the golf course advisory committee.
Mr. Sweeney provided copies of a memorandum which outlined prior relief and the proposed relief
see attached) he then gave a brief history of Kings Way Golf Club. It begins in 1975, at that time
they were granted Variance which included the construction of 750 multi-family units with the golf
course and other amenities. A Variance was required for public use of the golf course and it was
granted. It was determined by the board that the golf course was an allowed use within the open
space village development, but to allow public use would require a Variance. It limited the use of
the open space to residences. That public use was limited for a period of eight years, which began
when the golf course was available for play,May 27, 1988. In 1994 Kings Way appeared back before
this board to extend the permits to extend the construction of homes to Oct. 16, 2004 and provide
for public play on the Golf Course through Dec. 31, 1999. It was suggested that we could come back
between January 1st to December 31, 1999 and ask for further extension of the public play.
Mr. Sweeny then explained the present request. First, a general extension of the public play through
Dec. 31, 2002, to allow the golf course to remain viable economically until there's full build out at
Kings Way. Secondly, a request an opportunity to have at least 200 members from the public to be
allowed to use the golf course after the build out is complete, in addition to the residents at Kings
Way who are members of the golf course. He also provided a traffic study. They did not feel the
request for 200 non-member golf memberships would be a traffic problem after the build out. In
1986 the Board allowed a modification of the Kings Way development so as to provide for an elderly
facility known as Heatherwood and the traffic use at Heatherwood is reduced. If the total number
of homes built at Kings Way does not exceed 725,originally permitted for 750 homes to be built, you
there will be a reduction in traffic there also.
Representatives from Vanasse Associates were present to answer questions on the traffic study.
Mr. Reid mentioned that there was no correspondence in the file.
1-
Mr. Sarnosky asked how the reduction on the number of units relate to this petition.
Mr. Sweeney said that it has significance relative to the level of service of traffic. If we were to
construct 750 homes at Kings Way we would generate X amount of trips per day, if we were only
to construct 725 units or less, then the expected number of trips per day would be less.
Mr. Sarnosky asked what the relationship between the 725 and the actual membership of the
residence.
Mr. Calagaras stated that presently there are about 230 charter members, and we are projecting that
when the community is sold out it will be in the range of 260-270 or so.
Mr. Sarnosky asked if all 725 could get memberships?
Mr. Calagaras said no,the current program now is that someone has the opportunity to buy a charter
membership only at the time of purchasing their home. Any one that has an interest in golf, almost
always does that, in that there are others as well who purchases a membership in anticipation of
having it available for when they go to sell their home. So, now we are getting a high percentage of
residents joining the golf club when compared to national averages and that sort of thing. We are
expecting 260 or 270 memberships, approximately one third.
Mr. Sarnosky with 200 non-residents.
Mr. Sarnosky asked if the restaurant was considered part of the golf course operation.
Mr. Sweeney yes, it is within the golf course club house. Generally it is open for certain hours, it is
not open to the full extent that the golf course is open, which is early in the morning. Generally
opened year round, no I am being corrected, seasonally.
Mr. Scott Thornton, from Vanasse Associates answered question about the traffic study.
Mrs. Miller asked for a comparison of the cost of a non-owner annual membership to the Charter
membership.
A representative of the Charter Membership stated that currently the cost is $1,150.00 for a single
and $1, 740.00 for a couple, per year. For annual members a single is 1,450, a couple is 2,200.
Mrs. Miller asked how many units are built now?
Mr. Sweeney, plans presented to this board for permit compliance is 663.
Mrs. Miller, you are saying that in 2004 the public play ceases?
Mr. Sweeney, yes, except for the 200 non-residence memberships.
Mrs. Miller, how do you handle guest, are they considered public.
2-
Mr. Sweeney, no, they are guest of members. Currently, they have to pay like any member of the
public.
Mrs. Miller asked if the traffic study took in to account guests?
Representative, yes, it takes in to account some guests.
Mr. St. George asked about the charter members, is there a cut off.
Mr. Sweeney, there is a limitation of when they could acquire a charter membership.
Mr. Reid asked about the traffic projections, are the conclusion based upon the assumptions of the
full build out of 750 units.?
Scott:the projections are based on 725 units, 509 at Kings Way, 148 at retirement housing, and 68
units of the elderly housing.
Mr. Reid asked more questions on the traffic study on how they based their figures.
Mr. Reid asked why is it that they are finding the course or projecting the course not to be
economically viable without 200 addition members be non-residents?
Mr. Sweeney,the original projections were based on the boards conjecture in 1975, that there would
be build out in 10 years, the golf course could be viable after 8 years of the original build out. That
did not give any room for the time of construction of the course, and the fact that the projections
were inaccurate that we would build that many homes in that period of time. Economic projections
have changed,the expectations of the number or percentage of unit owners within the development
who would actually acquire is probably less than expected. It was expected 30-40% and it is going
to take the additional 200 member. The Board back then, did not want the golf course to be a burden
economically on non-golf course owners.
Mr.Reid,the Green Company must of had a range that they expected, do you know what that was.
Mr. Calagaras,when we did it we hoped for up in the 450 range. Currently we are anticipating it to
be around 260-270 at build out.
Mr. Reid asked if the course was a seasonal operation, is that an existing restriction?
Mr. Sweeney, there is no restriction within the permits, it could be opened year round.
Mr. St. George asked if this request was granted with the 200 members,would they allow tournament
play or group plays?
Mr. Sweeney,we would if this board felt it was appropriate, I have not requested that relief. Kings
Way has been the site of many different tournaments, including charitable tournament which has
raised quite a bit of money for the High School.,and we would have no objection to the Board adding
in that we could still have the course available for tournaments.
3-
Mr. Sarnosky, you have not asked for that.
Mr. Sweeney, no, not because we didn't want it, we did not want to over reach.
Mr. Sarnosky asked if someone has a unit, not a golf membership, they sell the property, can the new
owner get a charter membership.
Mr. Calagaras, no they can not get a charter membership, they could play as a daily greens fees
Mr. Sweeney,right now if you purchase a"new"unit, you have a window in which you can acquire
a charter membership. If you don't do that you loose your ability to acquire a charter membership
in the future. Right now,the course is open for full public play, that's walk-ins as well as the sale of
annual memberships to the public which could include someone who owns at Kings Way.
Mr. Calagaras, interrupted and stated that the club policy is that if you are not a charter member, you
are not eligible to be an annual member but you can play on a daily greens fee basis. We have about
80 annual memberships for non-residents.
Mr. Sarnosky asked why they discriminate against residents.
Mr. Sweeney,the reason for that is to encourage people at the time they buy the unit to buy charter
memberships.
The Board members went on to ask several more questions pertaining to the sale of the memberships
to residents, new unit members and the public.
Mr. Scott Price, Kings Way Charter Member, and member of the long range planning committee
spoke in favor of the petition. He mentioned that the Green Company has been selling charter
memberships to all interested new owners, for the future private golf course. They now realize that
to few home buyers will purchase charter memberships to carry the cross of the private resident only
golf club intended. It will be necessary to fill out the membership with enough non-resident
permanent members to establish a viable private club. Therefore, the Charter Members are in favor
of this petition and proposal. (Mr. Price gave a copy of his speech to the Chairman)
Mr. Walter Hallowell of 12 Marsh Side Dr., neighbor, spoke against the proposal because his
property backs up to the 14th green/tee. He complained that they start to cut grass at 6:00 a.m. to
7:00 a.m.,he complained to the Police Department. He also spoke about the manners of the golfers,
problems with profanity, golfers relieving themselves, golfers walking on his property to retrieve a
50 cent golf ball. He was concerned more for the non-owner memberships, are they allowed to bring
guests also?
Mr. Calagaras, offered that typically members of private clubs do have guests. He is not aware of
any that have limits on the number of guests. We anticipate having less rounds played on a full private
golf course,less than what is today. For example, 310 memberships generate only about 55% of the
play on the golf course right now, one could assume by adding another 50% of the 300, would only
generate another 25% of play, so we will see a decrease in the total rounds when it is private.
4-
Mr. Hallowell asked what time the golf course opened for play.
Mr. Calagaras said 7:00 a.m.
Mr. Hallowell, they cut grass at 6:00 a.m., and I don't think that is proper. They also should have
relief stations someplace on that golf course so they don't relief themselves in my back yard.
Mr. Price wanted to clarify a point, the request here is not to add 200 new golf memberships, it is
begin the process to replace what is a public course and turn it into a private course. The current
charter members would like to have 450 members, but offered first to every Kings Way family that
wanted to join first, so that we won't have to go out and sell to the outside, but may have too.
Mr. Sweeney apologized to the behavior of golfers and hopes this problem will go away when it is
a private club. On a whole,I think from the very few complaints that you heard that the golf course
and its players are very well managed and well operated.
Mr. Reid,to Mr. Sweeney, could you answer his question about the maintenance and mowing times,
will they remain the same and are there any restrictions in the condominium as to when it should be
done for the privacy of their residences as well as the neighbors.
Mr. Sweeney, the residents are completely surrounding the golf course and we a sensitive to that
issue for our own members. There are certain circumstances when maintenance will begin during
that period of time, not every day.
Mr. Hollowell, it is every day, 6:00 am to 7:00 am, on the 14th, seven days a week.
Mr. Sweeney,I spoke with the manager of the golf course be hind me, we will have to address that
issue with Mr. Hollowell and try to address that issue afterwards.
Mr. Reid, is there in existence either in the existing decision or with in the current condominiums own
restrictions a time limit when they can begin that work?
Mr. Sweeney, no not to my knowledge.
Mr. Daniel Keefe,24 Conservation Dr.,neighbor to the golf course. He asked the board not to grant
the relief requested. He feels it is a burden to be a neighbor to the golf course, a nuisance, Mr.
Hallowell is 100% correct. His property is 15' from the 4th tee. He has a deck approximately 75'
from the tee. The golf course has been a general nuisance to his family, himself, wife, and 10 year
old daughter. When out on the deck they hear some interesting things, and witnessed things done
on this tee, from 7:15 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There is a lot of yelling, cursing, constant flow of beer cans
tossed on his property,public urination. Not appropriate for my 10 year old daughter to witness. He
has had conversations with the Green Company over the last year or so to try to correct this problem.
They come here tonight expressing that they are willing to work with people but, they really aren't
that good a neighbor. I have met with representatives and they have come to the site and we
discussed putting up a privacy fence but that hasn't happened yet. They did install a fence on my
property, in a totally different spot then what we agreed upon, and it did not do anything to elevateourproblem. He asked the Green Company to remove the fence or put it in the spot we agreed upon
5-
but they told me they would not. After sending them a register letter, they finally agreed to take
down the fence and they were going to put up some landscape screening. When spring came and play
increased on the golf course things were getting out of hand. There was no landscape screening. I
have had to hire legal assistance,I call the Yarmouth Police Department, Sargent Prada has been very
helpful. Currently we have an agreement to put a fence up, but as I am hearing tonight, I am still
going to witness a flow of golfers going through. One on the principles told me when they came to
flag the site,he told me to my fence,"This fence will do no good" It is better than what is there now,
I told him. I actually believe this tee in my back yard, 15' from the property lines is illegal, it should
have never been put there. There is a buffer zone that was supposed to be put around the golf course,
according to the people in the neighborhood and the former owner of my property(1985), there is
supposed to be a 75'buffer. Please consider my plea tonight, I am very tolerant, but I am forced to
ask you not to approve this, please come to my property and see, come at 7:15 on Sunday morning
when things get going. I heard earlier tonight that the first tee time is 7:00 a.m., pretty quick time
to get to the 4th hole by 7:15 in the morning, it has happened, equipment runs out there at 6:00 am.
Mr. Reid asked Mr. Keefe in what way would this proposal change the situation you have.
Mr. Keefe, it won't, but this was initially was supposed to be a private golf course, and now what we
are hearing is we need to have public pay, more outside members. In other words we need someone
on all tees at all times, and I don't think a private golf course would have that. It extends my
problems. If you have private golfers belonging to a private community they are more tolerant to
neighbors, it's a more classy group of people,where the public they get in there, they don't care what
they do they may never come back,they don't care about the neighbors. If you have a totally private
club you have a better group of people,now they want to extend public play until 2002 maybe 2004,
who knows past that, and 200 outside memberships.
Mrs. Miller asked when his house was built.
Mr. Keefe, the house was built before the golf course, in 1986.
Mr. St. George asked Mr. Brandolini about the set back.
Mr. Keefe said that in the Board of Appeals notes of the hearing on Jan. 1986,
Mr. Brandolini said that with respect to golf courses there is no specific setback in our bylaw, I would
have to review the Board of Appeals decision.
Mr. Sweeney offered, that the Kings Way permits have an overall development buffer of no multi-
family homes can be built within 50' of the perimeter of the project.
Mr. Reid, there is not a requirement of a planted buffer as opposed to golf course
Mr. Sweeney, no
Mr. Keefe,I believe there is,there is reference to that particular buffer Mr. Sweeney is talking about
at the Board of Appeals hearing of 1986. I have also been told, and have had a hard time finding
documentation on it, but between the original owner of my property Susan Kelley and Lighthouse
6-
Associates,which was before Kings Way,there was a 75' buffer from her property. The tee is there,
and I don't have the money to fight it. I am asking you not to allow this to continue.
Mr. Sarnosky asked Mr. Keefe what kind of response he got from the Police when he called.
Mr. Keefe said that the Police was unbelievably great, Sargent Phil Prada, has followed up, gone over
to the maintenance shack to listen to the equipment, spoken to them. He told me that they should
no be doing anything out there before 7:00 a.m., there is a noise bylaw in this town.
Mr. Sweeney responded by saying that they are openly trying to achieve a goal, that this be a private
golf course with a mixture of owner members and a limited number of public members, so it won't
ultimately be available to the public. He was surprised to hear Mr. Keefe here tonight because he
thought that the issues with Mr. Keefe and his family had been resolved by the design of the new
fence and the landscaping which I understood had been agreed to. I understand the Police did come
and review our equipment, measured the noise volume of the equipment and told us that our activities
were in accordance with the towns rules and regulations.
Mr. Keefe responded to his proposed fence and landscaping. We had discussed it for the 6th time,
as of right now I have no fence, but I have continued noise and aggravation.
Mr. Sweeney,I thought the last issue to be resolved, you wanted the fence and the landscaping and
you wanted to preserve some views.
Mr. Keefe, I want a noise barrier placed up there and I don't want to see it. I will look at trees and
shrubs, put I don't want to look at a stockade fence up there. They were up there last week
discussing it, and he said it won't work, it won't stop the noise.
Mrs. Miller asked Mr. Sweeny if there were rest rooms available along the course?
Mr. Sweeney, no toilets available except at the club house.
Mrs. Miller is that the case at most golf courses?
Mr. Sweeney, yes, that has been my experience.
Mrs. Miller, I remember walking Dennis Pines and seeing Porta potties along the way.
Mr. Sweeney, you see them if there is a special event.
Mr. Reid, both town courses offer them Bass River at least two or three, and Bayberry as well.
Mrs. Miller, I am hearing some complaints and I think that they are very valid and it there is a way
we can address them with possibly providing some facilities for players, and trash barrels.
Mr. Sweeney, we don't have any objection to you asking us to ask the golf course advisory
committee to discuss the issue of placement of portable facilities. It may be an issue of visibility, we
don't want put one on the tee near Mr. Keefe's home, we would have to look into that issue.
Mrs. Moudouris asked for the cost of the memberships, single and couples, family?
7-
Mr. Calagaras said right now there is two membership categories, single and couples. Single cost for
a charter member is $1, 150., for a couple $1, 740., per year. The public fee structure will be have
to be worked out,because of the cost of running the course, but you could be talking $2,200. for an
average membership per year.
Mr. St. George asked if there was anyway the tee on the 4th could be changed.
Mr. Calagaras said that they could add a tee up in the front area, in order to at least provide a
alternative, to move the tee entirely would totally change that particular hole. We would be willing
to do that.
Mr. Keefe offered, that in speaking with one of the principals of Kings Way, that particular hole is
about to go through some major changes anyway because of the latest construction on the left hand
side fairway. They are removing sand bunkers, moving that tee would be a wonderful idea.
Mrs. Miller said that she did not understand that if it was Kings Ways intent to become a private
closed golf community, why are they limiting charter membership to follow the original buyers of the
units? If I was going to buy a unit today and the original owner of the unit did not buy a charter
membership I would then be precluded from becoming a charter member?
Mr. Calagaras, that is correct at the moment. It is a function of the way we marketed the charter
memberships, we believe that approach has actually enabled us to get a much higher percentage of
people joining the golf course which is our overall goal.
Mrs. Miller, said that it seems the original marketing of the charter membership is not working as
projected.
Mr. Sweeney, if our marketing plan or rules were such that you didn't have to buy a charter
membership when you purchased your new unit, we would have fewer charter members now than
we do have. Because people would have opted to try it on an annul basis, or maybe I will buy it later,
or what ever the reason. It is designed to increase the number of charter members.
Mr. Reid, I think the point was looking at the marketing prospective, from Mrs. Millers question,
after the build out, after all the units have gone through the initial marketing phase and initial sale,
after that point it would seem counter productive to not then offer the memberships on an annual
basis to the residents who are already there. If those 200 memberships were offered first to and used
by the residents, that would substantially eliminate the neighbors concerns about non-residents not
have the same vested interest and protecting their relationship with their neighbors. It would also,
if residents were the ones who purchase those memberships, it would eliminate the extra traffic
concern for people coming or going because they would already be there. That is the point.
Mrs. Miller, yes, thank you Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
Mr.Nolton, charter member, said the reason they support what the Green Company's is requesting
is the overall view in 1975 there were 750 units planned, with a golf course and anybody that was a
purchaser of a unit could be a charter member but what happened is after 1975 the Green Company
sold off235 of those units, Heatherwood which is an active elderly community, now there are only
three charter members from Heatherwood. Last week they got approval for 68 units of assisted units,
obviously none of those are going to be charter members. In 1978 the builder said to charter
members you have buy your charter membership when you buy your unit in here, the fee was
8-
originally $5,000. now it is $7,500. that goes to the builder, not to the club. There are 230
memberships, of that, only 160 dues paying memberships and the ratio there is approximately 75
single and 75 couples, there are 50 inactive memberships that paid the 5,000 or 7,500 that for a
200.00 fee each year can keep that membership so that when they sell their unit they can sell that
membership to the person who buys that unit. The reason you can't sell these later, the charter
members feel that when the Green Co. is built out and we take over the golf course, if legally we
would have a right to sell the charter memberships to those that didn't get one now, we would like
to do that, we have an attorney looking into that. There might be some property rights of an
individual unit owner who has a charter membership that he can only sell with his unit. It would be
hard for him/her to say"I bought all these rights at this time and the next door neighbor never bought
it, 8 years later he says now I can buy a charter membership. Another reason we support this, is if
we only have 160 dues paying memberships at this time and maybe when we take over in three or 4
years we might be up to 175 or 200. We can not run the course with approximately a one million
dollar budget with less than 400 members at a reasonable fee of$2,200. We also have cart fees,
1,000 a year, that is 3,200. to play golf for 5 or 6 months. We would hope to sell other units
members golf memberships so we don't have to sell non-resident memberships. We have to build
this up at the time of build out, we want to get these permanent members in place and do away with
as soon as possible with public play.
Mr. Reid to Mr. Sweeney, do I understand the two part nature of your request is to allow the general
public to continue through 12/31/02, and there after you would have the up to 200 non-owners
memberships that could be sold on an annual basis?
Mr. Sweeney, or sold permanently.
Mr. Reid, those memberships, would they be sold now, or only after 2002?
Mr. Sweeney, now. As soon as we can.
Mr. Reid, is there a difference between a charter member and a general paying membership?
Mr. Sweeney, $300.00.
Mr. Reid asked, if a resident of Kings Way who is not a charter member, purchase one of these 200
memberships?
Mr. Sweeney,no,not at this time. Based on the legal documents at Kings Way it would have to be
an outsider, that would be the case now. They can play on a daily basis, but they have agreed that
they would not,could not,buy a membership if they pass on the original charter membership, again
based on the fact that's the only way we can get people to buy charter memberships.
Mr. Reid,I understand the marketing decision, to encourage them to buy up front, I can understand
the existing charter members concerns, well they paid in for the charter members, why then should
some body else come in at the minute and get what we didn't get, but it seems to me, since the need
for public memberships is because of the lower % of resident membership, it seems to me you are
kind of shooting yourselves in the foot,by not allowing the residents that are there who want to play
golf to buy the memberships that you desperately need in order to run a golf course.
Mr. Sweeney,based on documents that people executed at the time they purchase at Kings Way they
understand that that's the rule and we couldn't do what you are suggesting if we wanted to.
9-
Mr. Reid but you are asking tonight for us to change the rule for you. Maybe the better answer is
to ask the residence to change the rules internally, rather than ask the town to change the rules.
Mr. Sweeney, we wouldn't have any objection to, after Phase I the end of the full public play on
12/31/02, suggesting to sell memberships at that time, that they make them available to then
residence, they would have to change their own rules to allow that, we don't have any objection to
that being in the decision, that at that point in time that they would have to change their own rules.
Keeping in mind that the decision would also say that can come back here after July 1, 2002, to
further report to you what the status was.
Mr. Reid, is what you are telling me, that because of the internal workings that if we impose that as
a condition that you couldn't enforce it?
Mr. Sweeney, right now we could not. There are legal impediments that would prevent us from
doing that. After it ends the full public use, 12/31/02, the then organization that owns and operates
the golf course could change their own rules internally, and allow that to occur.
Mr. Reid, could they change those rules prior to that? To go into effect at that time?
Mr. Sweeney,no,because they are not in legal control of the club, that doesn't click over until such
time, this would tie into our phasing for the construction of units.
Mr. Reid, your phasing out their phasing in.
Mr. Tom Start,charter member, stated that it is really necessary to sell those memberships now, the
income from public play is needed now too. We need to start off in 2002 with the income in order
to run the golf course. The 200 outside resident members will be members of a private golf club and
have all the rights of a resident.
Mr.Nolton, charter committee member, when the committee was talking about it we were thinking
that the non-resident outside members would have a condition on their membership that the last one
in could be bumped if in fact someone living at Kings Way wanted a membership, they would get
back their money. We would like to start off with as many charter memberships as we can get.
Discussion followed on how the non-resident and resident memberships could be marketed and sold.
Several scenarios were discussed by the board and the petitioners.
The Board went on to discuss the petition.
Mrs. Miller asked if we were to put a cap on the number of memberships of 450, once this is built
out, and the members are operating the golf course, are we then still limiting the number of
memberships, at that time does that cap come off if the private golf course wants to add members?
Mr. Reid, that is up to you to decide, there isn't any cap now.
Mrs. Miller, after the project is finished are we still placing this restriction on the Kings Way
community if they can not financially run it, can they market internally to sell more memberships to
the residents, will the cap not allow that?
Mr. Reid, yes.
10-
Mrs. Miller, I am not comfortable placing a cap, I think their projections for this development are
quite a bit off, I'm not sure but it could eventually hurt them.
Mr. St. George asked if we were allowed to add a condition, fixing the 4th tee, could it be added to
the decision to resolve the problem, and the early morning mowing problem?
Mr. Reid,you could limit some of these problems, the toughest one is the one having to do with the
neighbor because it effects his property not the Green Company's property. You couldn't require
them to do something on someone else's property, they could do it voluntarily, you could require
them to put the sound buffer on their own land.
Mrs. Moudouris asked if we were talking about modification to an existing permit, or a new Special
Permit, because if it is an existing Variance we will have trouble adding stipulations to an existing
Variance.
Mr. Reid, either way, I think you can impose the same conditions.
Mr. Reid asked the board if they wanted to try and resolve this one now, or do you want to go on
to the next petition and come back.
The majority of the Board members wanted to resolve this issue now.
Mr. Sarnosky made a motion to modify the existing Variance to allow the public play until
12/31/2002 with the stipulation that the 4t tee be addressed. Mr. St. George seconded the motion,
and the problem with the 4th be resolved with the abutting neighbor. The Chairman stated that you
couldn't impose that kind of condition, you have to be specific.
Mr. Sarnosky offered to make the condition, "the noise and social problems be addressed". Mrs.
Miller said you have to be more specific.
Mr. Sweeney, said that the conditions proposed would may not be workable, how do you resolve,
who would be the referee. He indicated that they will continue to have discussion with Mr. Keefe,
they have drafted a plan that shows landscaping, and the construction of the fence to not only to
screen out the problems that have been addressed but to protect views of the golf course that have
been requested and so forth. I can personally indicate to the board that we will continue to pursue
that to its resolution.
Mr. St. George, I think the question was moving the tee, that's what were trying to get to.
Mr. Sweeney at this point I can't make a representation to the board to as where it could be moved,
how,and where the tee could be placed. I can represent to the board that we will look to what Mr.
Calagaras indicated,the construction of an additional tee on the other side of the hole so that maybe
there would be less plan on the current tee and we will redesign that as stable as we indicated that
we are looking now to move a sand trap and that sort of thing. We will take into consideration as
to what has been said tonight and the redesign of that. I can't promise you what we will be able to
resolve and a lot of it is controlled by the homeowners and what they want. As to Mr. Keefe's
complaints,which I am sympathetic to,I can represent to you we a looking, I thought it was resolved
before I came tonight.
Mr. Reid, what was your understanding as to the resolution.
11-
Mrs. Moudouris, and I think also that the cap could be left open so that could also be reviewed at a
later date as well.
Mr. St. George,I think that is a good move,that will give them a chance to resolve the problems with
the neighbors.
Mr. Sarnosky,that is a different motion, we are still working on the first motion, and I would like to
amend that motion to allow public play until the year 2000, December 31. Come back and see if the
problem has gone away.
Mr. Sweeney, that is like a blink of an eye, we wouldn't have any objection to it be 12/31/2001.
Mr. St. George, I have a major problem with this problem, we have two neighbors in here
complaining, I am sympathetic to their problem. Lets give this one year trial to see if the problem
goes away.
Mrs. Miller, it would be a year and a half.
Mr. Sweeney, 12/31/00, would be acceptable so long as it is clear in the decision that we have the
ability to come back and request a further extension.
The Board members all agreed, that it was a fair request.
Mr. Reid, would we have after July 1, 2000 they may request further
Mrs. Miller,they can come back from July 1, to December 31, 2000. In this motion, could we also
put a condition on and report to us whether it is going to be feasible to start rest room facilities, can
it be part of the same motion?
Mr. Reid, yes.
Mr. Sweeney,I think we know that from the minutes, that we have to address all these issues when
we come back.
Mr. Reid, do you want to simply recite the concerns of neighbors of having, whether it is feasible to
locate portable sanitary facilities though out the course, as well as address the immediate abutter
concerns,do you want to simply address those as concerns that they should resolve prior to coming
back or do you want to impose some requirements that they do it right now?
Mr. Sarnosky and other members; before they come back.
Mr. Reid, sanitary facilities on the course, abutter impact, early morning noise.
Mr. Reid, the motion then is to extend public play for another year, 12/31/2000, with the
understanding that any time after July 1,2000 they come back for a further extension of that but that
the Boards contention is that they must address prior to that time the concerns to the two particular
neighbors who have spoken tonight, as well as addressing the issue of the apparent need for remove
sanitary facilities and the maintenance and mowing schedule and it impact on the neighbors.
Mr. St. George seconded that motion. There being no further discussion the vote passed 5-0 in favor.
13-
Mr. Sweeney, that we were going to construct a fence and install landscaping, partially on our
property,partially on Mr. Keefe's property, he was going to give us written permission to install on
his property, that design was based on a request of Mr. Keefe and a neighbor to make sure that the
design of the fence and landscaping didn't interfere with certain views of the golf course.
Mr. Reid,is it your understanding that the present plan would have the fence on your property or on
his?
Mr. Sweeney, partially on both.
Mr. Keefe asked to respond to that. What he is saying to you about that fence being on my property
and Kings Way property is absolutely wrong. I made absolutely clear to Mark Romanowitz, who I
have been dealing with that this fence, and you can go look at the flags that are up there, is entirely,
nothing is to go on my property,that is what the problem was the last time they tried to resolve this,
we agreed to put the fence up where it is now currently, supposedly going. They decided on their
own to move it again. There are no views to protect,I don't want to see their golf course or any one
on the golf course, the facts are getting twisted now. I would like to see the tee moved, that is the
only thing that is going to resolve it because when their principal says to me, looks me in the fence
when we are laying out this fence and says, it isn't going to work or stop the noise. How do you
think that makes me feel, not good. Moving it would be resolve it, where I can't hear and see what
I am now and more so my daughter to hear and see. Anyone with a 10 year old daughter can
appreciate what I am saying.
Mr. Reid, I don't think it is within the scope of our reasonable authority to tell them to remove the
tee without a specific plan in front of us that we can review and address, we can't design that for
them nor tell them where to move it.
Mr. Sweeney, it's a moving target in a sense. All I can do is relate to you based on the conservation
that I had with Mr. Brunell and what's been sent to me, again, we have indicated that we would put
up fencing and landscaping and work with Mr. Keefe to where that should be.
Mr. Reid, we have a motion to extend the deadline for public play through 12/31/2002 on the
condition of....some how addressing the problem with the abutters.
Mrs. Moudouris,I think the problem with the abutter would be addressed if we restricted the public
play so that we can review it again in a shorter period of time then two or three years.
Mrs. Miller, I feel the same.
Mrs. Moudouris,I think the issue is the general public coming in there is causing more of a problem
with the neighbors and Wit became a private course sooner,then some of those issues would probably
be resolved.
Mrs. Miller, can we shorten the extension.
Mr. Sarnosky, it seems like a very good mechanism to get some response.
Mr. Reid,then to make a shorter extension on the condition that they address the problems with the
neighbors.
12-
Mr. Sarnosky made a motion to allow the 200 non-resident memberships and cap membership to 450
after the build out the residents be allowed to purchase the charter memberships, even at the expense
of bumping non-resident charter members, and no family memberships.
Mr. Sweeney, yes, single memberships or couples. The motion doesn't distinguish between annual
and permanent rather than just say either or permanent,just say non-resident memberships.
Mr. Reid, so far the motion is to allow, after the expiration of public play they allow to continue to
have and sell up to 200 non-residents memberships, single or spousal to non-residents of the property,
on the condition that the total number of memberships does not exceed 450. And a condition, after
the build out is completed, they no longer can sell charter memberships, the 200 non-residents be
allow to purchase on a prioritize basis. Also, the total number of units be reduced from 750 units to
725 units.
Mr. St. George seconded the motion.
Discussion;Mr. Reid, in terms of the need for memberships, by setting the cap, we've limited them
to what in a sense they originally anticipated, if you do the math, of the original 750 units to be built,
they anticipated approximately 60%membership which is about 450 members. If we cap them at 450
then it is approximately the same volume of membership as was originally envisioned when the
property was created. By reducing the number of units to the 725, and allowing up to the additional
200 it shouldn't change the volume of play. There will be some increase in the charter over what was
originally anticipated because of up to 200 members and their guests coming from outside instead of
from inside, hopefully it will be less than 200 non-resident members.
The motion passed unanimously in favor. Tape off
Tape on; Mr. Sweeney, I did ask specifically for a Special Permit to operate the golf course but I
think the way you made your,you already granted the relief it is not necessary so I will withdraw that
one,though you still have to make a ruling on waving the regulations to allow the plan that was filed
to be less than two years old. (5 years old)
Mr. St. George made a motion to allow the plan to be less than two years old, Mr. Sarnosky
seconded the motion which passed in favor.
14-
Statement To Town of Yarmouth Board of Appeals-7/22/99
My name is Scott Price. I am a resident of Kings Way, and a Charter Member of the Kings
Way Golf Club which is being created by the Green Company. I am Co-Chair of the Long
Range Planning Committee of the club.
The Green Company initially gained town approval to build a resident owned private golf
club at Kings Way, and requested that public play be permitted while they were selling
residences and building a golf club membership. Green has sold, and continues to sell
Charter Memberships, for the future private Kings Way Golf Club, to all interested new
home buyers.
The Green Company now realizes that too few home buyers will purchase Charter
Memberships to carry the costs of the private resident-only club intended, and that it will
be necessary for them to fill out the membership with enough non-resident permanent
members to establish a viable and solvent private club.
On 27 May of this year,the Green Company met with the Charter Members to explain
their decision to come to the Board of Appeals to request the right to gain permanent
outside members for the club. The Charter Members enthusiastically approved such a step
as necessary for the success of the future Kings Way Golf Club.
Many of the Charter Members are here tonight to support the Green Company proposal
that the town approve the sale by Green of up to 200 permanent non-resident
memberships for the Kings Way Golf Club, and that public play be permitted until the
membership required is in place. At that time, daily public play can realistically be
terminated, and the club will become the private golf club requested by Green and
approved by the town.
0 New En3iano nL SIiie_•, _
Suite 314
Viiii
AIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIB
Transportation Engineers& Planners Andover, MA Oi 810 i 066
Office 978-474-8300
Pax 978.688.6508
Ref: 2404
July 8, 1999
Mr. Rick Maranhas
Vice President
TGG Limited Partnership
335 Cotuit Road
Sandwich, MA 02563
Re: Kings Way
Yarmouth,Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Maranhas:
Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAI) has conducted an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with a
revised site development program for the Kings Way mixed-use community in Yarmouth, Massachusetts.
The original permitted build-out of the Kings Way development con yes deof nte and
e constructionrucnon-
iondof 750
residential condominiums units with a public/private golf course for both
s in
1975. In 1986, a revision to the development program involved the replacement of 216 of those 750 unitsto
with retirement and assisted living elderly C0mmunity housing. The current build-out is
housing, 68 multi-family units of assisted living hou
proposed
ng,
consist of 148 multi-family units of retirement g,
and 509 multi-family housing units. In addition, the existing 80 nonresidential golf memberships will be
replaced with up to 200 nonresidential memberships.
To identify existing conditions in the immediate area, traffic counts were conducted at the Kings Way site
driveway with Route 6A. These counts also measured the current site trip generation characteristics, for
the period June 4 to June 8, 1999. Traffic volumes were projected to 2004, the future horizon ycar, and
vehicle trips expected with the revised build program were added and compared with those vehicle tripsexpectedwiththepermittedbuildprogram. Analysis using standard capacity analysis methodology wasconductedforexistingandfutureconditions,both with and without the project.
d-
As illustrated in our memorandum of July 7, 1999, calculations itial build programentproposedlof
out to the Kings Way development program presents fewer vehicle trips than the in
750 residential condominium units. In fact, the proposed build program is also expected to generate
fewer weekday peak-hour vehicle trips than the current
rates feweredtripsild-out, due to
than what thetlTE TripenewsGeneaton
es planned.
It should also be noted that the site currently g
manual indicates,possibly due to the on-site amenities such current build-out proposathe
convenience store l P It is
expected that this will continue with either the permitted or
future year of 2002, when full public play at the golfexpecurse
ted.
proposed to cease and the course becomes
The intersection of Kings Way and Route
member only, a further reduction in vehicletripsex P
6A currently operates at acceptable levels of service for all doesnot cause
peak-traffic periods al zed,change insin lvel
projected
f
to continue to do so in the future. The current proposedbuild-out
service from the permitted build-out for any movement at the intersection in the future 2004 horizon year.Therefore, sufficient capacity exists at the study area intersection to accommodate the current proposed
build-out.
Mr. Rick Maranhas
July 8, 1999
Page 2
The reduction in trip generation with the current proposed build-out can be clearly presented on a daily
basis. Based on the Kings Way golf course data on the number of golf rounds for the traffic counting
period June 4 through June 8, we have evaluated the expected daily trip-generation comparisons betweenthepermittedandcurrentbuildprogramsfortheKingsWaydevelopment.
The golf round data were categorized by member and non-member status. Based upon the supplied data,non-residents currently comprise approximately 28 percent of all members. Based on this percentage, the
following estimates were derived.
Average Maximum
Weekday Weekday Saturday
Rounds per Day Rounds per Day Rounds per Day
Non-Members 44 60 138
Member— Residents 36 63 47
Member—Non-Residents 14 24 17
As shown, member play tends to decrease proportionally on the weekends as the total rounds increase. Amaximumobservedtotalof87memberroundswasobservedonMonday, June 7; this was validated withpreviouslyprovidedinformationforthehistoricpeakmonthofJuly, which indicates a peak average of 88memberroundsperday. It should be noted that when public play ceases in 2004, the trips associated with
the non-member rounds shown above will be eliminated.
This leads to the following calculations for the replacement of 80 annual members with 200 non-resident
members.
88 Member Rounds 88 Member Rounds
x 28% Annual Members(80/286)
3 43%Non-Resident Members(200/462)b
24 Annual Members 38 Non-Resident Members
x 2 Trips per Member x 2 Trips per Member
48 Trips per Day Annual Members 76 Trips per Day/Non-Resident Members
Net increase of 28 daily vehicle trips due to new memberships.
Eighty annual members of 286 total current members.
bTwo-hundred non-resident members of 462 total projected members at project completion.
However, with the reduction in the number of residential condominiums(from 534 to 509) and build-outofassistedlivingunits (for 68 of the remaining 216 permitted retirement housing units)that would occurwiththebuildprogram, a reduction in daily site trip generation would be expected. This is shown below.
24u/070899
Mr. Rick Maranhas
July 8, 1999
Page 3
permitted Revised Residential Daily
Residential Development Development Vehicle-Trip
Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips Reduction
976 852 124
Weekday 766 159
Saturday 925
This daily trip reduction associated with the current proposed build program is between 4 and 6 times the
increase expected with the new non-resident golf memberships.
In conclusion,the following points should be noted:
Decrease in total number of units, from 750 to 725.
Decrease of 96 weekday vehicle trips and 131 Saturday vehicle trips with revised build
program.
119 p
r • The existing site generates fewer trips than that projected by ITE for a similar site.
L......7 When public play ceases in 2004, a decrease of between 44 rounds and 138 rounds (88 vehicle
trips and 276 vehicle trips) could be expected on a daily basis.The current build program does not cause a change in level of service from the permitted build
program at the site driveway intersection with Route 6A.
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call Scott Thornton
or me.
Sincerely,
VANASSE& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kenneth P. Cram, P.E.
Associate
KPClatg
cc: D. Calagaris
E. Sweeney
RDV, SWT, File
2.04/070e09 Vki
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Rick Maranhas FROM: Kenneth P. Cram,P.E.
Vice-President Scott Thornton, E.I.T.
TGG Limited Partnership Vanasse & Associates, inc.
335 Cotuit Road 10 New England Business Center Drive
Sandwich,MA 02563 Suite 314
Andover, MA 01810
978)474-8800
DATE:July 7, 1999 REF: 2404
SUBJECT: Revised Kings Way Development Program
Yarmouth,Massachusetts
Vanasse & Associates, Inc. (VAT) has conducted an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with a
current site development program for the Kings Way mixed-use community in Yarmouth,
Massachusetts. Originally permitted in 1976, as a 750-unit residential condominium complex with golfcourse, the current Kings Way development program was revised in 1986 to include a number of
retirement (55-plus) community condominiums, as well as an elderly housing complex. Currently,
approximately 385 two-bedroom residential condominiums are occupied in the Kings Way development,19 two-bedroom residential condominiums are occupied in the Admiralty development, and 148 two-bedroom retirement community condominiums are occupied in the Heatherwood development. The site
also contains a convenience store, post office,and clubhouse/restaurant.
In addition, the existing 80 annual non-resident memberships at the semi-private golf course would be
replaced with 200 non-residential memberships. The following summarizes the findings of this analysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Route 6A
The Kings Way development is located on the north side of Route 6A (Main Street) in Yarmouth, neartheDennistownline. Route 6A in the site vicinity is a secondary class roadway under state jurisdiction,and provides one lane per direction on a winding vertical and horizontal alignment with a speed limit of
40 miles per hour(mph).
Route 6A and Kings Way
The Kings Way development contains one access/egress point onto Route 6A. The Kings Way approachintersectsRoute6Afromthenorthtoformthisunsignalizedthree-way intersection under STOP-sign
control. The eastbound and westbound Route 6A approaches both consist of one 10-foot wide general
purpose lane, permitting turning movements, with 1-foot wide paved shoulders. The southbound Kings
Way approach provides two exclusive 7-foot wide turning lanes, one for left-turning vehicles and one for
t
2404I010799/atE
right-turning vehicles. Land use at the intersection consists of recreational uses.
Traffic Volumes
Automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts and manual turning movement counts (TMCs) were conductedonFriday, June 4 and Saturday, June 5, 1999 at the Kings Way intersection with Route 6A, along with
other internal intersections, and also on Kings Way, north of Route 6A. The traffic count data is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
TRAFFIC-VOLUME SUMMARY
Weekday Morning Weekday Evening Saturday Midday
Vehicles Directional Vehicles Directional Vehicles Directional
Location per Hour Distribution per Hour Distribution per Hour Distribution
Route 6A,west of Kings Way 1,005 59%WB 1,453 57%EB 1,240 57%EB
Kings Way,north of Route 6A 290 54%NB 321 56%SB 229 55%SB
Based on counts conducted in June 1999.
Accident History
Accident data for the Route 6A intersection with Kings Way was researched for the period 1995 to 1997,
the most recent three-year period for which data is available. Reported accidents recorded by the
Registry of Motor Vehicles and compiled by Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) were
reviewed. Over the three-year study period, a total of 4 accidents at the Kings Way intersection with
Route 6A were reported to MassHighway. However, all of these occurred in 1995. There were no
accidents reported to MassHighway in 1996 or 1997. None of the reported accidents resulted in any
fatalities at the intersection.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Background Growth
For purposes of background traffic growth information, traffic count data for Route 6A was researched
from the 1997 edition of the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) Traffic Count Report_ Counts conducted
over the previous four years were reviewed. Table 2 summarizes the count data.
24 .ro1o?9Ca1r
2
Table 2
CAPE COD COMMISSION TRAFFIC COUNT DATA'
Alma]
1994 1994 1995 1996 1997 Continuous Growth
Location Volume Volume Volume Volume Growth,Percent Rate,Percent
8,830 2.45 1.0081
Route 6A,wK 4M1)clraotfad 8,619 8,650
Route 6A,west of Setucket Road 11,933 11,732 1.68 0.9944
Setucket Road at
4,034 4,084 1.24 1.24
Yarmouth and Dennis Town Line
Average Growth Rate
1.08
Source: Cape Cod Traffic Counting Report; 1997.
As shown in Table 2, traffic levels in the vicinity of the site have remained fairly level or decreasedslightly. Based on the CCC report, the average annual traffic growth for the period 1992 to 1997 in the
Town of Yarmouth has been calculated at percentstedltin Tabl
growth, aorbale period 1987 to
ckground growth rate9of lal
calculated at 0.62 percent. Based on the count data
percent was determined to be an accurate index of future traffic level increases in the area.
No-Build Traffic Volumes
A five-year planning horizon was selected to represent future No-Build conditions, conditions withouttheproposedproject. Although the project is expected to be constructed and occupied prior to 2004, thismethodologywasselectedtopresentaconservativescenario. To represent future traffic flow conditions
at that time, existing traffic flows were adjusted to account for normal traffic growth. Therefore, a
compounded growth rate of 1.1 percent per year was applied to the existing through volumes on Route
6A.
ermitted Kings
In the absence of the revised build program,
would
build-out
be expected to generategtrpps as shown below an
development could be expected to occur, and
Table 3.
ivaro1ar9v!o
3
Table 3
REMAINING PERMITTED KINGS WAY HOUSING UNITS
Adult Community
Total
Residential Condominiums Condominiums
Rate' Tripsb Rate` Trips° Trips
Weekday 5.86 762 3.15 214 976
Weekday Morning:
In
47 0.09
1
0 08 5t0
5
O 037
0.07
Out 12 69
54
Total 0.44 57 0.17
Weekday Evening: 47 0.14 10 57
In 0.36 31
Out 0.18 23 0.12 8
70 026 18 88
Total 0.54
Saturday 5.67 737 2.76 188 925
Saturday Midday: 10 43
In 0.25 33 0.140
43
Out 0.22 28 0.13
80
37
Total 0.47 61 0.27 19
Based on 1TE LUC 230—Residential Condominium/Townhouse.
Based on 130 units.
Based on 1TE LUC 250—Retirement Community.
Based on 68 units.
4 No-Build condition
These trips were added to the adjusted Existing volumesand fromCesent the
Ro to 6A ino a 64 percent west/36
volumes. Existing site traffic was observed to flow topercenteastpattern. This pattern was used for assignment of all future site-related trips.
Build Traffic Volumes
Residential Component
The original permitted build-out of the Kings Way development consisted of the construction of 750
residential condominiums units. In 1986, a revision to the development program involved the
replacement of 216 of those 750 units with retirement community housing. The latest plans consist of
the inclusion of 68 of the 216 retirement community units with an elderly housing complex, a buildingcapoftheagerestrictedunitsattheexistinglevelof148, and a further reduction in the number of
standard residential condominium units (from 534 to 509). Trip-generation calculations on the
previously permitted developments and the proposed development were conducted using the ITEpublicationTripGenerationmanual, Sixth Edition,' and are summarized below.
Trip Generation, Sixth Edition;Institute of Transportation Engineers;Washington,DC; 1997.
4Vkill2404/070799%°tg
Table 4
RESIDENTIAL TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY
Original Current Proposed
Build Build Build
Program' Program° Program`
Weekday 4,395 3,810 3,686
Weekday Morning:
In 56 57 53
Out 274 214 201
Total 330 271 253
Weekday Evening:
In 271 223 209
Out 134 121 111
Total 405 345 321
Saturday 4,253 3,624 3,465
Saturday Midday:
In 188 166 160
Out 165 143 139
Total 353 309 299
Based on 750 units(ITE LUC 230—Residential Condominium/Townhouse).
Based on 534 units (ITE LUC 230) and 216 units (ITE LUC 250 — Retirement
Community).
Based on 509 units(ITE LUC 230), 148 units(ITE LUC 250),and 68 units(ITE LUC
253—Elderly Housing-Attached).
As shown, the proposed revision to the building program would result in fewer trips than either the
originally permitted 750-unit development or the 1994 revised development. However, it should be
noted that the present development generates fewer vehicle trips than that projected by the ITE for a
development of similar size and uses. This is shown below in Table 5.
e0aro7O1994as 5IIlki
Table 5
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT TRIP-GENERATION SUMMARY
Actual Count ITE
Data Data°
Weekday 2,928 3,478
Weekday Morning:
In 125 74
Out 105 169
Total 230 243
Weekday Evening:
In 144 189
Out 93 117
Total 237 306
Saturday 2,291 3,431
Saturday Midday:
In 122 163
Out 67 149
Total 189 313
Based on counts conducted at site driveway from June 4-8,
1999.
Based on 404 Units ITE LUC 230, 148 units ITE LUC 250
and 18 Hole Golf Course ITE LUC 430-Golf Course.
As shown in Table 5, the current site generates trips at a rate less intensive than similar developments,
possibly due to the on-site amenities such as the convenience store, post-office, and clubhouse/restaurant.
Therefore, the ITE calculations provide a"worst-case" scenario for trip generation totals, which may not
be realized in actual conditions.
Golf Course Component
To determine the change in trip generation to the site as a result of the revised golf course membership,
previous course records were reviewed. These indicate that approximately 49 percent of rounds played
at the golf course were played by the public, while the remainder were played by members of the club.
Of the total membership, approximately 80 are on an annual basis, and not owned by residents of the
Kings Way developments. Records also indicate that for the period March to December, the course
averages 26,000 rounds per year, with July the peak month, representing approximately 20 percent of the
ten-month round total. All trip-generation assumptions were therefore based on the peak month of July.
Based on the above data as well as that from the ITE Trip Generation manual for Golf Courses, an
average rate was calculated for external trips, consisting of both public and member play components.
y04707OWW,is
6
r
Applying this rate to the revision in membership, which involves the replacement of the 80 annualmemberswith200permanentnon-resident members results in the trip generation estimates shown in
Table 6. Also shown are external golf course trips resulting from the elimination of public play,
scheduled to occur in 2004.
Table 6
GOLF COURSE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
6)
I) 2) 3) 4) 5) Relative
Decrease),
18-11oie Existing Revised Relative Revised Increase(
Golf Course' External External Increase,External Trips,` Trips'
Trips Trips' Trips` Tripsd Without Public Play Without Public Play
Weekday 644 406 544 138 230 176)
Weekday Morning:
27 7 1 9)
In 328 20
6 1 3 al
Out
Total 40 25 33 8 14 11)
Weekday Evening: 5 8 6)
In 22 14 19
Out 27 17 23 6 10 ll
total 49 31 42 11 18 13)
Saturday 732 462 619 157 262 200)
Saturday Midday:
In 40 25 33 8 14 II)
Out 43 27 36 9 15 12)
Total 33 52 69 17 29 23)
Based on ITE LUC 430:Golf Course.
Based on column(1)and existing external trip percentage of 63 percent of total golf course trips.
Based on column(I)and proposed external trip percentage of 70 percent of total golf course trips.
Column(3)-Column(2).
Based on column(1)and future external trip percentage of 49 percent of total golf course trips without public play.
Column(5)-column(2).
It should be noted that these trips are based on rates published in the Trip Generation manual, while the
actual trips generated by the golf course are substantially lower for the peak periods shown.
The revised build program trips (including the additional golf course memberships) were added to the
existing entering and exiting movements at the Kings Way intersection with Route 6A to represent the2004Buildprogram. These trips are shown in Table 7. For comparison purposes, these trips are shown -
with those trips expected with the remaining permitted build-out of the development.
2404/070799!ns
7
Table 7
PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT—
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON°
Current Proposed
Build Build
Program" Program`
Weekday 976 990
Weekday Morning:
In 15 18
Out 54 41
Total 69 59
Weekday Evening:
In 57 47
Out 31 28
Total 88 75
Saturday 925 923
Saturday Midday:
In 43 45
Out 37 42
Total 80 87
Based primarily on 1TE trip-generation rates.
Based on 130 residential condominium units and 68 adult community
condominium units yet to be constructed.
Based on 105 residential condominium units, 68 elderly housing units, and
increase due to revised golf program.
As shown in Table 7, the proposed build program is expected to generate slightly more trips on a daily
basis, as well as slightly more trips during the Saturday midday peak hour. 'However, during the critical
weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours, the proposed build program is expected to generate
fewer trips than the current build program.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Measuring existing and future traffic volumes quantifies traffic flow within the study area. To assess
quality of flow, capacity analyses were conducted under Existing, No-Build, and Build traffic-volume
conditions.
404,07o19'
8,.
t
METHODOLOGY
Levels of Service
A primary result of capacity analyses' is the assignment of levels of service to traffic facilities under
various traffic-flow conditions. The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and/or passen-gers. A level-of-service definition provides an index to quality of traffic flow in terms of such factors asspeed,travel time, freedom to maneuver,traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience,and safety.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility. They are given letter designations from A to F,
with level-of-service (LOS) A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst.
Since the level of service of a traffic facility is a function of the traffic flows placed upon it, such a facil-
ity may operate at a wide range of levels of service, depending on the time of day, day of week, or period
of year.
Unsiffnalized Intersections
The six levels of service for unsignalized intersections may be described as follows:
LOSA represents a condition with little or no delay to minor street traffic.
LOS B represents a condition with short delays to minor street traffic.
LOS C represents a condition with average delays to minor street traffic.
LOS D represents a condition with long delays to minor street traffic.
LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level, with very long delays to minor
street traffic.
LOS F represents a condition where minor street demand volume exceeds capacity of an
approach lane, with extreme delays resulting.
The levels of service of unsignalized intersections are determined by the application of a procedure
described in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual' The procedure accounts for lane configuration on both
the minor and major approaches, conflicting traffic stream volumes, and type of intersection control
STOP versus YIELD). First, the theoretical maximum or capacity flow of vehicles for each minor
approach lane is calculated based on a gap-analysis procedure. The capacities and the demands at the
respective minor approaches are used to calculate delays experienced by motorists. The delays are used
as the criterion for estimating level of service. Table 8 summarizes the relationship between expected
delay and level of service.
The capacity analysis methodology is based on the concepts and procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209,Third Edition;Transportation Research Board; Washington,DC; 1994.Highway Capacity Manual,Special Report 209,Third Edition;Transportation Research Board;Washington,DC; 1994.
240u0707994%
9
Table 8
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSa
Delay(seconds) Level of Service
5 A
5to10 B
10to20 C
20 to 30 D
30to45 E
45 F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual,Special
Report 209,Third Edition;
Transportation Research Board;
Washington,DC; 1994;pagc 10-12.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Intersection analyses were conducted at the intersection of Kings Way and Route 6A. Results of these
analyses are presented below.
Table 9
t
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY—KINGS WAY AND ROUTE 6A In i
1999 Existing 2v4 No-Build 2004 Build
MovemcntfTime Period Dcmand' Dclayb LOS' Demand '`-.Qe)ay_. ='LOS Demd Delay ' LOS
Left Turn Exiting Site:
Weekday Morning 31 13.2 C 48 15.9 C 46 15.9 C
Weekday Evening 33 27.9 D 44 44.2 E 43 42.7 E
s
Saturday Midday 26 19.2 C 39 25.9 D 41 26.6 D
Left Turn Entering Site:
Weekday Morning 82 4.3 A 92 4.5 A 94 4.5 A
Weekday Evening 78 4.6 A 111 5.4 B 108 5.1 B
Saturday Midday 84 4.1 A 110 4.4 A 113 4.5 A
Demand of critical movement.
Delay of movement in seconds per vehicle.194`
Level of service.
V
lia
piety
241.di07n7Qo/,t
10
CONCLUSION
The current proposed build-out to the Kings Way development program presents fewer vehicle trips than
the initial build program of 750 residential condominium units. In fact, the proposed build program is
also expected to generate fewer weekday peak-hour vehicle trips than the current permitted build-out,
due to the new uses planned. It should also be noted that the site currently generates fewer trips than
what the ITE Trip Generation manual indicates, possibly due to the on-site amenities such as the
convenience store and post office. It is expected that this will continue with either the current or
proposed build programs, in which case the projections outlined above are conservative. Finally, in the
future year of 2002, when full public play at the golf course is proposed to cease and the course becomes
member only, a reduction in vehicle trips on the order of that shown in Table 6 is expected.
The intersection of Kings Way and Route 6A currently operates at acceptable levels of service for all
peak-traffic periods analyzed, and is projected to continue to do so in the future, with or without the
proposed build program. It is suggested that new pavement markings be applied on the Kings Way
approach to the intersection, as these are becoming faded. The proposed build program does not cause a
change in level of service from the current build program for any movement at the intersection in the
future 2004 horizon year. Based on these findings, sufficient capacity exists at the study area
intersection to accommodate the proposed build program.
A04,070700f.ig 11 IA II
TOTAL P. 15