HomeMy WebLinkAbout4965 79 White Rock Rd Decision TC 08.08.22 °" TOWN OF YARMOUTH
t BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: August 8, 2022
PETITION NO: 4965
HEARING DATE: July 28, 2022
PETITIONER: Wingate Kirkland Operating, LLC
PROPERTY: 79 White Rock Road,Yarmouth Port, MA
Map 115,Parcel 233.1.1
Zoning District: R-40 & & Aquifer Protection District
Title: Book 18997,Page 340
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Steven DeYoung, Sean Igoe,Jay
Fraprie, and John Mantoni.
Notice of the hearing was 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 was held on the date stated above.
The petitioner is Wingate Kirkland Operating, LLC, which does business as the"Camp
Wingate/Kirkland". The location of the camp is 79 White Rock Road, Yarmouth Port, MA. The
petitioner seeks relief with respect to a 255 ft.2 addition to an existing "Lodge" 8"building and to
construct a 708 ft.2 Yurt/Tent structure for staff housing. The relief sought is in the alternative,
i.e., a Special Permit under 104.3.2 (4) and/or a Variance under Bylaw Section 203.5.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner was William Rubenstein who indicated that he, along with
his wife,were the owners. While the petitioner's representative began his presentation with a
history of the camp which was of no significant relevance, relevant in its history was the fact that
on March 13, 2014, Petition 4508 granted a Special Permit for work that was done and needed
relief. The work that was done at that time was for a Welcome Center which was already
constructed. At the hearing on March 13, 2014, Mr. Rubenstein had suggested that the Town
adopt some procedure to facilitate prompt authorization should other similar needs arise as this
was, after all, a camp for children which has a short season. This suggestion was made after the
petitioner was admonished that his mistake might be easily revolved while similar actions in the
future would not be so easily tolerated. His suggestion for an accelerated procedure was rejected
by all Board Members. The Board clearly indicated that any failure to comply with proper
procedures in the future would run the risk of being denied relief with orders to remove any
offending structure.
Despite this same petitioner and its representative having been before the Board on March 13,
2014 and having been admonished about the failure to obtain zoning relief for construction of
any new facilities at the camp,the petitioner completely disregarded its obligation. Mr.
Rubenstein appeared and seemed not to grasp the significance of his repetitive violation of
zoning relief procedures. Nevertheless,the Board reviewed the merits of this petition. The
petitioner explained both verbally and by photographs the use and construction of the yurt.
Measuring 700 ft.2 the building appears to essentially be a hide-sided tent structure with a
wooden exposed frame on the interior. There were no beds shown within the photographs;
however, the petitioner's representative indicated that staff members would be housed within the
structure. He explained that beds would be set up around the interior wall and floor area suitable
for staff to store their personal belongings and sleep within the structure. It was represented by
the petitioner that the fireplace/stove that had been shown in previous depictions will be removed
and would not be reinstalled. In granting relief, the Board relied upon the petitioner's
representation concerning this issue.
As to the extension to "Lodge 8"the petitioner explained that the construction, which had
already occurred, was done to create a private bathroom and sleeping space for staff within the
building. No exhibits were received during the hearing, and no one spoke in favor or against the
petitioner. The Board did, however, receive an anonymous 2-page letter from"a neighborhood
group concerned with the upcoming petition at 79 White Rock Rd.". Unfortunately,this sort of
anonymous correspondence has a lessened value due to the fact no one has identified themselves
as being the author.Nevertheless, the concerns within the 2-page letter were considered by the
Board in reaching its deliberative decision.
Mr. Igoe and Mr. DeYoung expressed the significant fact that the petitioner decided to
essentially "thumb his nose"at the Board and the admonitions contained within the prior
decision affecting this property. The petitioner's need to comply with procedures required by the
bylaws was known to it before the completed work for which it now seeks relief, and it actions
were done with a knowingly complete disregard for such procedures and for the Board's clear
directions. As to the merits of the petition, while the Board did have concerns, it also had to
consider whether or not a grant of a Special Permit would result in any undue hazard, nuisance or
congestion or if it would be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood or Town now or in the
future. The property is a large tract which can easily accommodate the new structures. The Board
agreed that a Special Permit could be granted with certain conditions. The neighbors' complaints
about larger vehicles coming onto the property through the neighborhood was not an issue that
resulted in any congestion beyond that which might already occur. Accordingly, a motion was
made by Mr. Mr. Fraprie, seconded by Mr. Mantoni to grant the Special Permit(and thereby
consider the variance as withdrawn)upon the following conditions: 1. There be no occupancy of
the yurt and the newly constructed addition to Lodge 8 until such time as there is a certificate of
occupancy issued following inspection of both the yurt and the addition and by both the Building
Department and the Board of Health; 2. That all deliveries/trash removal to the camp and to the
property from White Rock Road and that such deliveries occur between the hours of 10 AM to 4
PM; 3. That there be no further expansion of any structure or construction of any new structure at
this property without Zoning Board approval; 4. That the petitioner have annual inspections by
the Board of Health and Building Department; 5. That no business be conducted on this property
except that of the Camp; 6. That the staff/campers will not ring the camp bell after sundown; and
7. That the petitioner return to this Board at the end of July 2023. To review with the Board its
compliance with the prior conditions. On this motion, a roll call vote was taken with the
following results: Mr. Mantoni-Aye; Mr. Igoe-Aye; Mr. DeYoung-Aye; and Mr. Fraprie-Aye.
Accordingly, the Special Permit was granted on a 4-0 vote and the Variance was,therefore,
withdrawn without prejudice.
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
Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See bylaw
§103.2.5, MGL c40A §9)
Steven DeYoung, Chairman
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 #4965 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.
Mary A. Maslowski