HomeMy WebLinkAbout4961 142 Route 6A Decision Certified 08.02.22 �Yd1
,�. ,,,• TOWN OF YARMOUTH
4
BOARD OF APPEALS
.0\ '"� DECISION
�:\1•71 i. go •
• S.
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: July 8, 2022
PETITION NO: 4961
HEARING DATE: June 23,2022
PETITIONER: Vincent J. Zuccala and Taryn R. Zuccala
PROPERTY: 142 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port,MA
Map 122,Parcel 34
Zoning District: R-40
Title: Book 29134,Page 223
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Sean Igoe, Dick Martin,Jay Fraprie,
Richard Neitz and John Mantoni
Notice of the hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the Petitioner and all those owners
of property as required by law, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and publishing in
The Cape Cod Times,the hearing opened and held on the date stated above.
The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit and/or Variance per §104.3.2 or 203.5 to allow garage/barn
in excess of 150 feet to be positioned within side yard setbacks.
The Property is located in the R-40 Zoning District and contains 12,310 square feet and 55 feet
of frontage on Route 6A. The lot is improved with a two-story single family residence containing
4 bedrooms, and which complies with the front yard setback. The lot is oddly shaped and is
jogged to the north east. The house is 7 feet from the east boundary and 10 feet from the west
boundary. There is, however, a right of way along the easterly boundary, created by a deed from
1914,which provides access to the rear of this property, and measures approximately 10 feet
wide. This was created presumably based on the narrow side setbacks when the property was
constructed. The existing septic tanks are not H-20, and there is a cracked distribution box,
which prevents cars from turning on the property. Rather,vehicles accessing the property
currently need to back out onto Route 6A when exiting. The current lot coverage is 12.9%.
The proposal is to construct a 22 foot by 32 foot detached barn, on a concrete slab, on the rear
portion of the property. The barn will comply with the rear setback, but will be 13.5 feet from the
east boundary and 16 feet from the west boundary, in a zoning district which requires 20 feet.
The position of the barn is such that it will not be located near any other structure on abutting
properties. There will be 2 levels in the new structure, and the space will be powered and heated,
and have water for a sink and bathroom.No living space is proposed, as this will be a working
A TRUE CwOPY ATTEST:
Tii)9 ).WIA4ghlkje-4.
CM, L I CM ,4X0WM ghir
barn, with space to work on cars. The height from grade will be 25.8 feet, and the lot coverage
will increase to 18.9%. The existing shed in the rear corner, measuring 96 total square feet,will
remain. Septic improvements will allow vehicles to be driver over the tanks, allowing for nose
first exits onto Route 6A
By letter,two abutting property owners, on either side of the Property, expressed full support
for this project, and the abutter to the north also expressed his support directly to the Petitioner. In
addition, an abutter appeared at the meeting in support of the project.No abutters appeared in
opposition to the project.
The Board discussed the circumstances and their applicability to the issuance of a
Variance, pursuant to section 102.2.2 and 203.5 of the Yarmouth Zoning Bylaw. The Board was
in agreement that the Petitioner has demonstrated that their project qualifies for the issuance of
said Variance. Specifically,
1. literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve a substantial hardship,
financial or otherwise,to the petitioner or appellant.
Hardship is not being reasonably able to use property for the purpose, or in the manner, allowed
by the municipal zoning requirements due to circumstances particularly affecting that property.
And in this case, based only on a dimensional variance, even a minor hardship can justify the
variance. Marashalian. v ZBA of Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719 (1996). If relief was not granted
to the Petitioners, then they would not be able to have an accessory structure, typically allowed
by right, other than an 11 foot wide building. Other properties routinely have barns or garages
on smaller lots than this. In addition, there is a safety issue with the need to back out of the
driveway onto a State Highway.
2. The hardship is owing to circumstances relating 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 in which it is located.
The hardship is owing directly to the narrowness of this lot and the unique shape which creates
issues involving setbacks. The shape is unique to this lot. In addition, the necessity to back out of
the driveway onto Route 6A creates a safety hardship.
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.
Although Petitioner cannot meet the current setbacks with this project, it has been located to a
portion of the lot which will not be any closer to another structure than what the current Bylaw
allows. In addition, there is neighbor support for this project, and any derogation must be
substantial. Here, the Variance is sought to allow a reasonable 4 foot and 6.5 foot encroachment
into a 20 foot setback
Accordingly, a motion was made by Mr.Neitz, seconded by Mr. Fraprie,to issue the Variance as
requested,with the condition that it not be used as habitable space, unless the Petitioner returns
to this Board for that use. The members voted unanimously in favor of the motion.TRUE Y ATTEST
•
CM, Mca{Q./ " P1fLERK
A second Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Fraprie,to allow the Petitioner to
withdraw the request for relief in the form of a Special Permit, as it was the consensus of the
Board that such relief is not warranted in a case where there is no extension of the existing pre-
existing non-conforming structure. The members voted unanimously in favor of the 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 section 17 and must be filed
within 20 days after filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise
provided herein, the Variance shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within one
year of the date of grant. (See MGL c40A §10)
Sean goe, hairman
CERTIFICATION OF TOWN CLERK
I, Mary A. Maslowski, Town Clerk, Town of Yarmouth, do hereby certify that 20 days have
elapsed since the filing with me of the above Board of Appeals Decision #4961 that no notice of
appeal of said decision has been filed with me, or, if such appeal has been filed it has been
dismissed or denied. All appeals have been exhausted.
WL4Mta'(1114111)6L461—
Mary A. Maslowski
AUG - 2 2022
•Ya COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
7"" k o TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
0 - )1-1
9J
..r
Petition #: 4961 Date: July 29, 2022
Certificate of Granting of a Variance
(General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11)
The Board of Appeals of the Town of Yarmouth Massachusetts hereby certifies that a Variance has been
granted to:
Vincent J. Zuccala and Taryn R. Zuccala
142 Route 6A
Yarmouth Port,MA 02675
Affecting the rights of the owner with respect to land or buildings at: 142 Route 6A,Yarmouth Port, MA;
Map #: 122; Parcel#: 34; Zoning District: R-40; Book/Page: 29134,223 and the said Board of Appeals
further certifies that the decision attached hereto is a true and correct copy of its decision granting said
Variance, and copies of said decision, and of all plans referred to in the decision, have been filed.
The Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the owner or applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section 11 (last paragraph) and Section 13, provides that no Variance, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the Town Clerk that
twenty (20) days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk and no appeal
has been filed or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the
Registry of Deeds for the county and district in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index under
the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such
reco ''ng or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
Sean e, Chai
RUE C ATTEST:
CMMU/CMC i' LVAN CLERK
AUG - 2 2022