Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Decision 3570 Developer Response to Site Plan Review 07.08.99
` ARDITO, SWEENEY, STUSSE, ROBERTSON & DUPUY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MATTACHEESE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 25 MID-TECH DRIVE,SUITE C WEST YARMOUTH,MASSACHUSETTS 02673 EDWARD J SWEENEY,JR. TELEPHONE(508)775-3433 RICHARD P MORSE.JR MICHAEL B STUSSEBETSY NEWELL DONNA M.ROBERTSON FAX(508)790-4778 PAUL R.TARDIF• MATTHEW..DUPUY CHARLES M.SABATT CHARLES J.ARDITO PC 'also admitted in MAINE PLEASE REFER TO FILE NUMBER July 8, 1999 40116.5 • David Reid, ,Chairman Yarmouth Board of Appeals Yarmouth Town Offices 1146 Route 28 So. Yarmouth, MA 02664 Re: Heatherwood at King's Way, Phase III Plan Revisions Dear Mr. Reid: • Attached please find correspondence from the Developer's representative to ( 1) Yarmouth Water Department; (2) Yarmouth Fire Department; (3 ) Yarmouth Board of Health; (4 ) Yarmouth Engineering Department all in response to Site Plan Review Comment Sheet of June 15, 1999. This enclosed correspondence describes how the plans which have been submitted to the Board of Appeals have been modified to meet the review requirements of these Departments and provides additional information to the Departments which was requested at Site Plan Review. Very truly yours, EDWWEENEY JR. EJS/des Encs. ceI uS t c - ' Transportation Land Development Environmental • • Services . �IM► imagination innovation energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities June 24, 1999 Vanasse Hcangen Brustlin, Inc. Ref: 06262 Richard Crowley Superintendant • Yarmouth Water Department 102 Uniori Street Yaroumouth Port,MA 02675 Re: Heatherwood Water Service • Dear Rick: For your review,I have enclosed Dwg.C-3,Layout,Materials and Utilities Plan issued for Site Plan Review,as revised on June 23, 1999. Please note that the following revisions reference your memorandum to the Site Plan Review Committee dated June 14, 1999. 1. The plans show a connection to an 8"main which I am not sure exists. I field verified the location of the 8"main on Thursday,June 17, 1999 with Scott McClellan of Heatherwood and Mark Romanowicz of The Green Company. This 8" main is stubbed through the basement wall of the 2000 building. The enclosed site plans have been revised to show the approximate location. Utility note#4 on Dwg.C-2 requires the contractor to field verify the exiting utilites prior to ordering materials and to report any discrepencies to the engineer. 2. The plans show 4"water mains. 4"mains are not allowed. The minumum main size allowed is 8". The plans have been revised to show an 8"domestic water service that taps into the 12" main in Kings Circuit and an 8"fire service that ties to the 8"boosted main on-site. Both services enter the building through a mechanical room. The 8"domestic water will be reduces to a 2"main within the building. A 2"meter will be provided. 3. The plans show a 4"main increasing to a 6"main. The plans have been revised to show all 8"mains. 530 Broadway Providence, Rhode Island 02909-1820 401.272.8100 . FAX 401.273.9694 email: info@vhb.com \\\heatherwood\It-Richard Crowley.doc www.vhb.com Richard Crowley Project No.: 06262 June 24, 1999 Page 2 4. A recent hydraulic study on the current conditions and fiiture needs was recently completed by our engineers. I expect to have that report soon. This will bear heavily on my recommendation regarding this project. We have reviewed the pressure data in the report and have determined that the available pressure is adequate for domestic water service to the proposed building. 5. The project engineer needs to submit to the Yarmouth Water Department his flow requirements for the purpose of sizing the service and meter. Bill Duross, the project plumbing engineer,will forward the flow requirements for the purpose of sizing the service and meter to the Yarmouth Water Department. • I trust that these revisions meet your approval. Please call prior to June 28'if you have any questions or require anything further. We are submitting plans to the Board of Appeals on July 1"and would like the opportunity to address all of your concerns prior to that time. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANG EN BRUSTLIN,� INC. . AdttMAL. ' , Melanie Walsh Senior Project Engineer Cc: A.Crystal —O'Connell S.Cohen —Benchmark E.Sweeney —Atty. B \heatherwoodlt-Richard Crowley.doc Transportation Land Development Environmental Services rn 530 Broadway Vim Vana sse Hangen Bru stlin, Inc. Providence,Rhode Island 02909 401 272-8100 FAX 401 273-9694 Transmittal To: Deputy Bill Green Date: June 24, 1999 Yarmouth Fire Dept. 96 Main Street South Yarmouth,Ma 02554 Project No.: 06262 • From: Melanie Walsh Re: Heatherwood Phase 3 Hi Deputy Green! Enclosed please find the revised Heatherwood Layout,Materials and Utilities Plan,Dwg.C-3,as revised on June 23, 1999. Please note that the layout has been revised per our discussion on June 17, 1999. The Site Plan Review comments have been addressed: 1. Concern for emergency vehicle access to main door The circular driveway in front of the building has been signed for one way access. This should improve the emergency vehicle access at the front door 2. Sprinkler system and fire alarm required(stand alone) A sprinkler system and fire alarm have been proposed. 3. Water and pressure adequacy The water study conducted by Earthtech at the request of the Town of Yarmouth Water Department concludes that there is adequate pressure to support the domestic water service for the proposed building. There is adequate pressure in the on-site boosted fire service to support the proposed building. 4. Fire standpipes • Fire standpipes have been provided and are identified on the enclosed plan. 5. Fire Extinguishers Fire extinguishers will be provided as required. 6. Meet with YFD for fire requirements The project MEP will schedule a meeting with the YFD prior to the issuance of construction documents. Additionally: • The entry drive width has been revised to 24'; • A post indicator valve(PIV)has been added to the fire service in front of the building. \\\heatherwood\tr-Deputy Bill Green.doc Date: June 24,1999 2 Project No.: 06262 I trust that these revisions further address your concerns.Please call if you have any questions or require anything further. Thank you! cc: A.Crystal—O'Connell S.Cohen—Benchmark E.Sweeney—Atty. • \\\heatherwood\tr-Deputy Bill Green.doc - - Transportation Land Development Environmental • • Services VHBimagination innovation energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities June 24, 1999 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Ref: 06262 Bruce Murphy • Yarmouth Board of Health 1146 Route 28 • South Yarmouth,MA 02664 Re: Heatherwood Phase 3 • Dear Bruce: As requested,enclosed please find the following: • A memo from Mark Norton,the Kings Way Property Manager,summarizing flow contributions to the on-site Septic Treatment Plant. • One calculation sheet exhibiting Massachusetts Title V septic flows based on the number of bedrooms in the Kings Way Development. • Dwg.C-3,Layout,Materials and Utilities Plan,as revised on June 23, 1999. The revisions include note#4 that states that all sewer lines shall be inspected and certified by the engineer to the Health Department prior to occupancy. • Dwg.C-4,Grading and Drainage Plan,as revised on June 23, 1999. The revisions include a raise in the building top of slab elevation to 186.5'and minor grading modifications in the circular drive. This places the building two feet above the high point(184.5) in front of the building. I trust that the sewer information and the plan revisions meet your approval. Please call prior to June 28th if you have any questions or require anything further. We are submitting plans to the Board of Appeals on July le and would like the opportunity to address all of your concerns prior to that time. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN� \ , //�1 BRUSTLIN,INC. ,Iti104511k;t 1J�.0 Melanie Walsh Senior Project Engineer 530 Broadway Providence, Rhode Island 02909-1820 401.272.8100 . FAX 401.273.9694 email: info@vhb.com www.vhb.com \\\heatherwood\lt-Bruce Murphy.doc VHBComputations Project k \wce_y0 3 Project# Z(.Q 7-- Location 1"PC Sheet ) of Calculated by ),A.W'PCTt-\' Z f Date 6O/ 1/q Checked by Date Title OP( CI‘ • ZCf- —0 o \/ LON ram( - Ccc 1r1L— V — I 1 o �:?1) / 6-r` 1� U� ��NG rfG2 -1�►'CL �L (17(L&E,,("1--t-TO .a V N\; x 1`!,Ll,-t /V v " !to(.r I -�%-rL --(Cl_C Sb 7f-,o Loct,-1 x t\U U-1== = — ���1�v' G) \.A Q\: -\ - ® -1 OTP i CAP 15 0 t i 5U6 �r � 1 4;0 9 6 C C iLGQL.: AL,. ( ;6 00 67D 145 096 T 672 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. ' 'j 0-1 OV - S"I% 1 Printed on Recycled Paper iNC*4\c.c L-r-� Ott 4' 06/23/1399 17: 51 508-362-8666 KINGS WAY PAGE 02 TiU Kings Way Trust Phone: 508-362-3535 64 Kings Circuit FAX:508-362-8666 Yarmouth Port,MA email:mark.norton 02875 @,greencos.com Manorandum To: Melanie Walsh VHB Engineering Inc. From: Mark Norton Property Manager Kings Way Condominiums cc: Bruce Murphy, Town of Yarmouth $card of Health Date: June 23,1999 Subject: WWTF daily flows Per your request, information based on April 1999 compliance report by Earth Tech Inc.;operations company for Kings Way Waste Water Treatment - Ji Facility. Monthly Average Floc' 44,123 per day Dily Maximum Flow 47,444 Gallons Daly Minimum Flow 39,659 Gallons based on 492 homes Total homes at build out K1Jigs Way Condo. 464 Htiptherwood 216 Ainiralty Htgs. 19 Total f 99 homes Crently 70% complel e Etiniate at completion based on 45,000 X 1.30 =58,500 gpd monthly average. Seasonal fluctuations in resident population increase and decrease gpd. Groundwater discharge permit allows for effluent discharge of 165,000 gpd. 3lv C\IR DEP.ARTMMEN1 OF EN\ lRO\\IE\TAL. PROTECTION • I: _.3 connnued MIYDJU 1 ALLOWABLE GPD FOR GALLONS SYSTEM TYPE OF ESTABLISK\vNT L'\'IT PER DAY DESIGN (2)RESIDENTIAL. Bed &Breakfast per bedroom 110 440 Bed&Breakfast per bedroom 110 with restaurant open to public add per seat 35 1000 Camp, resident,mess hal! per person' 10 Camp,day, washroom per person 10 • and toilets Carop, day, mess hall • per person 3 Campground, showers and toilets per site 90 FamilyDwellin• Sin•le erbedroom 110 330" Family Dwelling, Multiple per bedroom 110 ••• Family Mobile Home Park per mobile home 300 Mote!,Hotel,Boarding per bedroom 110 House Retirement Mobile Home Park per site 150 Housing for the Elderly per unit 150T 'ork or Construction Camp per person 50 • Person in the context of 310 CMR 15.203 shall mean an individual. " A system may be designed for flows of 220 gpd,if a deed restriction limiting use of the dwelling to -� two bedrooms is provided, as described in the definition of'bedroom'in 310 CMR 15.002. •'• The number of bedrooms in a condominium shall be as specified in the Master Deed. Establishment of bedrooms in excess of the specified number shall be considered an increase in design flow. (3) COMMERCIAL Amusement Center per sq.ft. 2 1000 • Airport per passenger 5 150 Barber Shop/Beauty Salon per chair 100 Bowling Alley per alley 100 Country Club,dining room per seat 10 Country Club, snack bar or lunch room per seat 10 Country Club,lockers and showers per locker 20 Doctor Office per doctor 250 Dentist Office per chair 200 Factory or Industrial Plant without cafeteria per person 15 Factory or Industrial Plant with cafeteria per person 20 Gasoline Station per island**** 75 300 with service bays per bay 125 •••• Plus flows for bays, if any • • Kennel/Veterinary Office per kennel 50 Lounge,Tavern per seat 20 Marina per slip 10 500 Movie Theater per seat 5 • Non-single family/ per washing 400 automatic clothes washer • machine Office building . per 1000 sq.ft. 75 200 11 3,'9_ 310 CMR- 510 :-.., '...' t' ,r, ..• : ' t ;,- ' . eNrG cep ;. . DESIGN DATA WASTEWA I'Llt TREATMENT PLANT OAS HARBOUR YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS February 3,1975 Prepared by DANA F.PERKINS &SONS,INC. Environmental Engineering Division Reading,Massachusetts 69 %al V J t -y V arn S • n 7. II LLL � 3 ' 0 0 Z o NO 0 0 NOOONO t000 O N 1-4f. t }' tf) ,-I 0 c+� .-i O O • • -C C N 0 Za) - • a ` 0 O o +� coca) co • z aSW I—I 00 CD CD CD NOa0000 CD CDr-4 ,--I CON O 0 riONOtf) 0 tt) CO k; 0 Cn r-I N er N o a at - *.� N 1-4 0 • C to a woC • Z > c• .4CCCD awx . . t. 1 I-4 C) 00 0 0 COV4000 0 N NTrCI C.C) 0 0 r-40 000 N 0CT) CDN 0NO CD r-I c� U) Tr- �r V CO O cd CO ri CO CO .0 N a ri 1 t i - Cfl 00 0 o 000tf) 0cf) 0 0 0 I'' N CO CO 0 0 ONOriO ul 0 a) C) ri 07 .•i 0 0 0 ri 0 CO ••i ri 0. 0 rCO: M ao M cNc a ,-4 • o �, 0 m o • • [ •d a) 0:1 A ,, Cl.) a.aEv as = . •d 1:3:9; ,� bobomC6bobo tiai mv►� m C m of v,Ci E C a '�` ,, °� � -moo • c o 00 ,� ' at :I° +, � .o C C 0 �, b 0 0 0 i 0 '� 0 '4 ' O h m 3 W r 4 v •L! 0 'D C 000 r0i •U ,vi bo 3 O O aa� a • w ri cdri cd � 0 `� 0 ,i 0 .o A ••1 . 0 Lr A =+ 3 = Q = cd ai A A cd G C E C C :1: •*� $. bo t�• O Z Z 0 0 = bo x w 0 O to O 'C cd C •d •*i U) ..i U2 ' D+ U x U a) O U A • i r r i Transportation Land Development Environmental Service s 530 Broadway VHB Vanasse Ilangen Brustlin, Inc. Providence,Rhode Island 02909 401 272-8100 FAX 401 273-9694 Transmittal To: Shawn Machines Date: June 24,1999 Yarmouth Engineering Dept. 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth,MA 02664 Project No.: 06262 From: Melanie Walsh Re: Heatherwood Enclosed please find DWG.C-6,Detail Sheet 1,and DWG.C-8,Detail Sheet 3,as revised on June 23, 1999. We have revised the Cape Cod Berm and Vertical Granite Curb details to provide the following pavement section detail: • 12"Gravel Base Course • 2"Binder Course • 1"Surface Course Please call if you have any questions or require anything further. Cc: A.Crystal—O'Connell S.Cohen—Benchmark E.Sweeney—Atty. \\\heatherwood\tr-ShawnMackut s.doc • PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM EXHIBIT A The proposed project represents the third and final phase of Heatherwood at Kings Way. Heatherwood presently consists of 156 Units that were built in two phases. Phase III will add a total of 60 Units. Once the Phase III is complete,Heatherwood at Kings Way will consist of a total of 216 Units. Existing Conditions: Phases I and IL The total number of Units,parking spaces and the parking ratio for Heatherwood at Kings Way as it presently exists is as follows: Total Ratio Number of Surface Sub-Surface Number of of Spaces Units Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces to Units 156 87 117 204 1.31 • Proposed: Phases I,II and III Combined. Phase III will add 60 Units and 39 parking spaces to what already exists. The total number of Units,parking spaces and the parking ratio for Heatherwood at Kings Way upon the completion of Phase III is as follows: Total Ratio Number of Surface Sub-Surface Number of of Spaces Units Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces to Units 216 126 117 243 1.13 Note: Although 60 Units are being added in Phase 3,a total of 68 units of assisted living will actually be constructed. The difference of 8 units represents the conversion of 14 existing assisted living units into 6 two-bedroom independent living units. Phase III includes the construction of 39 additional parking spaces. Four of these 39 spaces will be dedicated for the exclusive use by the residents and guests of independent living. Since the number of independent living units,and parking spaces available to those units,will not change significantly from what already exists,the addition of Phase III will have no adverse impact on Heatherwood. The remaining 35 parking spaces to be added in Phase Ill will be dedicated for use only by assisted living. As explained below, 35 parking spaces is more than sufficient to satisfy the needs of assisted living. Assisted living is designed to accommodate seniors who are experiencing some difficulties performing the basic activities in daily life(dressing,eating,transferring,continence,bathing),but not to the extent that skilled nursing care in necessary. Persons who reach this stage in life typically can no longer drive. A study completed by the American Seniors Housing Association that involved 10,000 assisted living units has identified several factors that influence the parking requirements for assisted living. The Study confirms that the parking requirement for assisted living is significantly less than that needed for independent living. The conclusions reached by the Study regarding the demand for parking at assisted living communities are summarized below. A complete copy of the Study is attached along with a one- page article that references the Study in summary form. 1. In a typical assisted living community,the number of residents that choose to retain a vehicle is the equivalent of.05 vehicles per unit. For the proposed Phase III,this equates to approximately 4 vehicles in total needed for resident parking. Contributing factors are an average resident age in the mid 80s and the provision of a community transportation. 2. The typical assisted living community will need approximately.19 parking spaces per unit for employees during the weekday a.m.peak hours(7:00 am. -9:00 a.m.)and.16 parking spaces per unit for employees during the weekday p.m.peak hours(4:00 p.m.—6:00 p.m.). For the proposed Phase III,this equates to a maximum of 13 spaces needed during the weekday a.m. peak hours and a maximum of 11 spaces needed during the weekday p.m.peak hours (assuming no car pooling). 3. The typical assisted living community will experience a need for visitor parking of approximately.11 spaces per unit during the weekday a.m. peak hours and.22 spaces per unit during the weekday p.m.peak hours. For the proposed Phase III,this equates to a maximum of 8 spaces of visitor parking during the weekday a.m.peak hours and a maximum of 15 spaces of visitor parking during the weekday p.m.peak hours. 4. Deliveries to assisted living will occur during the off-peak morning hours,when the staffing is light. Ample space has been provided for delivery vehicles in addition to the number of parking spaces provided. Deliveries therefore should not effect the availability or use of the parking spaces. In summary, the proposed Phase III is projected to experience the need for a maximum number of parking spaces in the range of 25 (during weekday a.m. peak hours)and 30(during weekday p.m.peak hours). A total of 35 dedicated spaces are provided. The number of spaces provided is sufficient to satisfy the needs of the assisted living community. The total number of spaces provided for Heatherwood after the build-out of Phase III will continue to be in excess of 1.1 per unit,which is the standard by which Heatherwood has been judged in the past • - JUN-04-1999 FRI 11 :08 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 02 t. • ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES: A STUDY OF TRAFFIC & PARKING IMPLICATIONS 2"Edition • AS HA AMERICAN SENIORS HOUSING ASSOCIATION 1850 M STREET,NW,SUTTE 540 WASHINGTON,DC 20036 TELEPHONE 2021974-2300 FACSIMILE 202/775-0112 JUN 4 ' 99 12 05 17814167371 PAGE . 002 JUN-94-1999 FRI 11 :08 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 03 American Seniors Housing Association A Study of Traffic & Parking Implications 2"d Edition Created in 1991 and based in Washington,DC,ASHA represents the interests of the larger and more prominent firms in the country participating in the seniors housing industry. ASHA's members are engaged in all 'aspects of the development and operation of congregate, assisted living, and continuing care retirement communities,including the building,financing,and management of such properties. For more information on the benefits of becoming a member of ASHA, as well as other research resources, contact us at: ASHA 1850 M Street,NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202/974-2300 FAX: 202/775-0112 JUN 4 99 12 05 17814167371 PAGE . 003 JUN=04-1999 FRI 11 :08 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 04 • ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCF-S:A STUDY OF TRAFFIC&PARKING Dvil,LICATIONS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Methodology 3 Traffic Generation Data 4 Parking Generation Data 6 Key Findings 7 ASHA gratefully acknowledges the technical assistance provided by Fred M. Greenberg,P.E., Director of Transportation, Barakos-Landino Design Group, Meriden, CT. • ©1998 by the American Seniors Housing Association All rights reserved. The text portions of this work may not be reproduced or ttansmincd in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical. including photocopying,recording,or by information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the publisher. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject master covered. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal,accounting or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance Is required,the services of a competent professional person should be sought. (From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers.) Price:S50.00 JUN 4 ' 99 12 : 05 17814167371 PAGE . 004 JUN;04-1999 FRI 11 :08 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 05 ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES:A STUDY OF TRAFFIC&PARKING IMPLICATIONS Introduction The elderly population(those individuals aged 65 Projected Elderly Population and older) currently numbers 33.9 million, or 12.8 percent of the U.S.population. U.S.Bureau 10.0 of the Census projections indicate by the year 5 2030, the elderly population will increase to about 70 million, or 20 percent of the U.S. o 9 population (see Figure 1). .Q IIIIWIFr As the graying of America accelerates, IWIIIIIIIIIIM policymakers will be forced to confront the long- m term care needs of the elderly. It has been well documented that asindividuals age,their capacity 1090 2000 2010 2020 zoso xneo uaa for independent living diminishes, According to the most recent data available from the National Figure Sbwos:U S.Sweet,of Ma Census,65•in Dre Unted States Health Interview Survey, for example,more than half(54 percent)of the older population reported having at least one disability which limits them in carrying out activities of daily living (ADLs) (such as bathing, dressing, and eating). Likewise, the need for assistance with ADLs Percent Needing Assistance with ADLs,By Age increases significantly with age(see Figure 2). 25-� Although the U.S. has historically relied on 20- !20 • nursing homes to provide long-term care, i .._ , spiraling costs and rising consumer discontent ts- • have led policymakers and consumers to search ci for less costly and more efficient long-term care a t°_ 8.6 alternatives. U.S. General Accounting Office P:',-; estimates that Medicaid nursing home a s_ disbursements,which serve as the primary public z.s :. funding source for long-term care, cost tax _' _. •_ payers $24.2 billion in 1995 (the last year for ° which data from all funding sources is available). 6S-69 70-74 75-64 85+ Figure 2 Medicare, a federal/state program, funded an T;AMP.�prolUeolOK7srAme�cAnd 1997 additional $8.4 billion for nursing home care in 1995. 1 JUN 4 ' 99 12 05 17814167371 PAGE . 005 JUN--04-1999 FRI 11 :08 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 06 ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES:A STUDY of TRAFFIC 8c PARKING NPLICATIONS One of the most promising long-term care options for seniors and their families is assisted living residences. Assisted living residences provide 24-hour care for seniors who need assistance with ADLs,but do not need the more costly continuous health care provided by nursing homes. Assisted living residences are a relatively new long-term care option that has met with strong consumer demand. The American Seniors Housing Association's most recent(1998)construction survey,for example, identified 460 assisted living residences(32,666 units)being built in the U.S.,accounting for three-fourths of all seniors housing under construction. Assisted living residences incorporate many appealing attributes:housing,hospitality services and • health care. The hybrid nature of assisted living, however, has created some confusion about the impact of these residences on the surrounding community. Misperception abounds with regard to assisted living residences' traffic volume and parking requirements. This study,which is based on a more comprehensive sample than its predecessor(released in 1997),provides policymakers with an objective overview of assisted living traffic and parking. • • JUN 4 ' 99 12 : 05 17814167371 PAGE . 006 JUN-04-1999 FRI 11 :09 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 07 ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES:A STUDY OF TRAFFIC&PARKING IMPLICATIONS Study Methodology In order to document the unique traffic and parking characteristics of assisted living residences, the American Seniors Housing Association examined and aggregated parking and traffic generation data from professionally owned and managed assisted living residences located in nine states:Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,New Jersey,New York, Ohio, and Texas. The data was then compared to traffic and parking data collected by the Institute of Transportation • Engineers(ITE),' whose traffic and parking reports are considered the industry standard for a wide range of property types. ITE,however,does not provide data on assisted living traffic and parking characteristics. The revised edition of this report is based on a more comprehensive data set than the earlier report, and is believed to more accurately reflect assisted Iiving traffic generation during peak weekday morning and evening hours. The assisted living residences examined contained an average of I 09 units. Typically,assisted living residences dedicate at least 90 percent of their units for single-occupancy. Most of the units within the residences were similar to those in apartment communities and included kitchenettes, refrigerators, microwave ovens, sinks, and counter and storage space. Most residences also had significant common areas, including dining rooms,sitting rooms,Iounges, libraries, beauty/barber shops,convenience stores,and exercise/wellness rooms. The assisted living residences operated at or near full capacity; average resident age was 84. The average assisted living residence examined had a staff-to-resident ratio of one-to-two. Units were almost always rented. Fees for services were charged on an a la carte basis, or were included in the monthly rent. Services provided to residents varied, but typically included the following: • 24-hour protective oversight ■ Social and recreational activities • Meals, including snacks and special diets • Transportation • Housekeeping • Laundry ■ On-call physician/nurse • Exercise/wellness programs • Emergency call systems • Assistance with daily living activities such as bathing, dressing, and eating ■ Medication administration or reminders • First aid.and medical care for minor ailments and conditions 'Trip Generation,6"Edition,Volume I of 3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997; Parking Generation,2n°Edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. 3 JUN 4 99 12 06 17814167371 PAGE . 007 JUN-04-1999 FRI 11 :09 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 08 • ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES:A STUDY OF TRAFFIC&PARKING LMPLICATIONS Traffic Generation Data Traffic generated by assisted living residences was generally limited to trips by employee,visitor, service vendor, and resident vehicles. Employee Vehicles Employee vehicles contributed over half (56 Assisted Living Residence percent) of all traffic volume generated by assisted Source of Trip Generation • living residences(see Figure 3). Employee vehicle trips during the weekday for all driving hours visitor average 0.97 trips per unit. During the peak (21%) t� weekday morning hour', employee vehicles made - an average of 0,10 trips per unit. During the peak F` ,sty weekday evening driving hour, employee vehicles s.rrk. EE,pioy.. made an average of 0.09 trips per unit (see Figure (Wx) ,s.xl 4). The moderate impact of employee vehicles on Figure 3 traffic volume is largely due to the fact that most Sa"'°'""'°"""Sent =Hotosi"°A.ssod•"o" assisted living employees are full-time staff This limits the"in and out"activities associated with part-time staff. Additionally,because assisted living residences provide 24-hour protective oversight,employees are typically scheduled to begin and end their shifts during non-peak driving hours. Employees are often scheduled in three shifts:a morning shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; an afternoon shift from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.;and a night shift from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Assisted Living Residence Traffic Generation Visitor Vehicles hulk W.rdiy Peak Weekday Weekday Visitor vehicles contribute over one-quarter A.Y.Your P.M.Hour Employee a,aenh o.ov,,,,, °,,,,"„h (29 percent)of all traffic volume generated by - assisted living residences. On a typical vlyeor aOYu+k aovu,k 0.500.,n weekday,visitor vehicles made an average of Service o.w„Q,u a.°wnis 0'6A"rill 0.50 trips per unit. During the peak weekday Tow aeon, 0.21/""t '""'""'` _ morning driving hour, visitor vehicles made Figure 4 an average of 0.06 trips per unit. During the Sauna Anwncan serail Housing k ;,non peak weekday evening driving hour, visitor vehicles made an average of 0.09 trips per unit. The impact of visitor vehicles on traffic volume generated by assisted living residences is moderate, largely because visitor vehicles arrive and depart throughout the day on both weekdays and 'When indicated, the peak hour typically coincides with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. 4 JUN 4 99 1z : 06 17814167371 PAGE . 008 JUN--04-1999 FRI 11 :09 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 09 ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES:A STUDY OF TRAFFIC&PARKING IMPLICATIONS weekends,and do not fit the typical traffic(and parking)volumes generated by other housing types, which are usually highest during peak driving hours. Service Vehicles Service vehicles contribute 15 percent of all traffic volume generated by an assisted living residence. On a typical weekday, service vehicles made an average of 0.26 trips per unit. During the peak weekday morning driving hour, service vehicles made an average of 0.04 trips per unit. During the . peak weekday evening driving hour, service vehicles made an average of 0.03 trips per unit. • The moderate impact of service vehicles on traffic volumes generated by assisted living residences is due,in part,to the fact that most service vendors are contracted and scheduled to arrive and depart during non-peak. hours, Assisted living Vehicle Ownership Per Unit residences typically have trash removal scheduled daily; bulk food deliveries three times a week — two deliveries per week for meat and vegetable products and one delivery per week for dairy products;medical supplies ::' ' delivered by a pharmacy are typically "` ^` scheduled once a week, as are florist ; `t deliveries; office supplies are ty icall t y < `= ' = scheduled once a month; hazardous o.os material/sharp object pick-up is typically S I.`°'"*"auircr "pain""'. Minted L."'^9 Reid°"`° scheduled on demand, as are overnight Property Type g shipments. U.S. mail, which is not Figure 5 contracted, is delivered six days per week. So i, •US.Hum./d El*Gnus. 1999 AmeBaen Mousing Survey. Amemen Sensors Howling A3XC11 Don Resident Vehicles Resident vehicles did not contribute measurably to the traffic generation of the assisted living residences. This was generally due to three factors. First, most residents, due to physical and/or cognitive limitations, do not•drive. The average number of resident vehicles was 0.05 per household. This is extremely low compared to other property types such as single-family homes and apartments (see Figure 5). Second,most of the assisted living residences in the sample were located in established residential areas in close proximity to public transportation services. Finally, each assisted living residence owned a van or mini-bus,which was used to provide resident transportation on a scheduled basis. Other Vehicles Although there is no known data available on the number of emergency vehicles dispatched by property type,anecdotal evidence suggests that one to two situations per month at an assisted living residence may require the dispatch of an ambulance and paramedics. The total demand placed on . 5 JUN 4 99 12 : 06 17814167371 PAGE . 009 ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES:A STUDY OF TRAFFIC&PARKING LMPLICATIONS a community's emergency services by Traffic Generation Comparison by Property Type assisted living residences, however, is no higher than it would be if the residents lived Property Type Peak Peak weekday in non-service-enriched housing. In fact, A.M.Weekda Weekday Hour P.M. r emergency service usage is probably lower Singh-Family 0.75Nnit 1.01/unit 9:57/unit because assisted living residences feature a Detached' wide-range of design considerations for the Low-Rise 0.51/unit 0.62funit 6.59/unit frail elderly that are generally not available in Apartment' High-Re. 034/unit 0.40funit Bunn other residential settings. Apartment' Hotel 0.52unit 0.61/unit 8.23funft Traffic Generation Comparison Retirement 029funit 0.34funit Not Availabb Comm'nitY Total traffic volume generated by assisted Asisid Living °20`unit 0.21/unit '.''"unit living residences during a typical weekday Residence averaged 1.73 trips per unit. Total traffic volume generated by assisted living residences during the peak weekday morning Figure 6 driving hour averaged 0.20 trips per unit. 'Source:Institute of Transportation Eivneers.Trip Generation 5'Edition; American Seniors Housing Association Total traffic volume generated during the peak weekday evening driving hour averaged 0.21 trips per unit. Assisted living residences generate low traffic volumes compared to most other property types(see Figure 6). Low-rise apartment communities,for example,generate an average of 0.51 trips per unit during the peak weekday morning driving hour as compared to 0.20 trips per unit for assisted living residences. • Parking Requirements by Property Type Parking Generation Data Property Type Peak Weekday Parking requirements for assisted living `ow/Mid-,dsApartment' 1.04funit residences are also low compared to other AP"tTMnr 0.68n,,,it housing types. Based on the traffic data comnr«mcn"oesr aa,funit examined, assisted living residences Retirement Community' o27fun t require 0.22 parking spaces during peak Assisted Living Residence 022funit weekday driving hours.' The assisted living residences, however, typically Figure 7 provide an average of 0.56 parking spaces per unit, including on-site, disabled, "Sou roc Insert•d rmayort.00n F.rgrres,Parkin;Generation P'&eon:: Amrnans"`" HOWil°~"°°e on reserved, and ancillary parking spaces. 3 Peak weekday driving hours for assisted living residences are between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.;for most other residential property types,peak weekday driving hours extend to 6:00 p.m.. 6 JUN--04-1999 FRI 11 : 10 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO. 17814167371 P. 11 • ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES.A STUDY OF TRAFFIC IC&PARKING rivIPLICATIONS Key Findings The comparatively low traffic generation and parking requirements of assisted living residences are generally attributable to the following factors: • Residents typically do not drive • Employees are usually full-time staff and are typically scheduled to arrive and depart during non-peak driving hours • Visitors typically arrive and depart at all hours during the day • Service vendors are usually contracted and scheduled to arrive and depart during non-peak driving hours • Assisted living residences are frequently located in close proximity to major arterial roadways serviced by public transportation • Assisted living residences typically own a van or mini-bus,which is used to provide resident transportation on a scheduled basis • JUN 4 ' 99 12 : 07 17814167371 PAGE . 011 JUN-,04-1999 FRI 11 : 10 AM BENCHMARK ASST. LIVING FAX NO, 17814167371 P. 12 tAS HA American Seniors Housing Association EXECUTIVE BOARD CHAIR/WAN Philip J.Downey Le AIRMAN Marriott Senior Living ServicesD. c Field Washington, Alternative Living Services,Inc. Tacoma, WA Christopher J.Coates Patrick R.Leardo American Retirement Corporation Coopers&Lybrand L.L.P. Ralph a Nagel M Brentwood,TN New York,NY nidian Retirement Communities Denver,CO Graham P.Espley-Jones Martin R Satava ARV Assisted Living,Inc. CRSA,Inc. Tjarda Van S.Clagett Costa Mesa,CA Memphis,TN Merrill Lynch&Co. New York,NY Jerome Spevack Donald J. MacKinnon Associated Estates Realty Corporation Donaldson,Lufkin&Jenrette Raymond d CapitalM Anthony Richmond Heights, OH Securities Corporation Nomura York,NY New York,NY New W.Patrick Mulloy,II Atria Communities,Inc. Frederick T. Caven,Jr, Rick D.McDaniel PaineWebber Incorporated Louisville,KY Encore Senior Living San Francisco,CA Portland,OR Karen M.Anderson Boston Financial David J.Freshwater Michael S.McCarthy Boston,MA Fountains Affiliated Companies,Inc. Skokie,�entor Services,L.L.C. Mark J. Schulte Tucson,AZ Brookdaie Living Communities,Inc. Donald P.Qu'u>n Raymond J.Reisert,Jr. Chicago;IL Goodwin,Procter&Hoar LLP Mineola,N P W ola NY g Inc. Mark D.Roth Plymouth, MA Capital Consulting Group James T.Hands Peter Sidoti Newark,DE Schroder&Co.,Inc, Hampstead Group New York,NY Jeffrey L.Beck Dallas,TX Capital Senior Living, Inc. Paul A.Gordon Mel Garman Dallas,TX Senior Housing Investment Hanson,Bridgett,Marcus, Advisors,Inc. Vlahos&Rudy LLP Newton,MA Marc Benson San Francisco,CA CareMatrix Corporation Needham, MA Charles J. Herman,Jr. William B. Kaplan Senior Lifestyle Corporation Phillip M. Anderson Herman der Group,LLC Chicago,IL Classic Residence by Hyatt Net"Castle,DE Chicago, IL Edward R.Kenn Janet A.Lindbo y Walker Methodist, Inc. Life Care Services Corporation Minneapolis, MN William E. Colson Des Moines,IA Colson & Colson/ Holiday Retirement Co William H.Elliott Salem,OR rP- Karen A. Struve WHE Associates, Inc. Mercy Services for Aging Beverly Hills,CA Farmington Hills,MI Suite 540 • 1850 M Street, NW • Washington, DC 20036 • (202)02 659-3381 • Fox (202)775-0112 JUN 4 ' 99 12 : 07 17814167371 PAGE . 012 y 441 Briefings on Assisted Living OA/E i4 1 /iA7 eil No parking problems Despite what NIMBY (Not In My while multifamily housing general- ed living residents own few cars, Backyard)-minded neighbors may ed 6.28 trips per unit. only .05 cars per household, or 4 say, parking is generally not a prob- vehicles for a 78-unit community. lem in assisted living. In fact, the Assisted living residences also Employee vehicles are the biggest neighbors should welcome assisted require fewer parking spaces than contributor to traffic volume, mak- living communities because they ing up 55% (see chart below). But bring far fewer parking and traffic / because most assisted living woes than most other types of employees work full-time, the "in housing. and out" activity is limited. Those are the findings of a new Visitors contribute approximately study recently released by The 30% of traffic volume. This vol- American Seniors Housing ume is considered fairly moderate Association (ASHA). In October because the visitors arrive and 1996, ASHA began compiling data [®/ depart throughout the day on both on traffic and parking volumes gen- weekdays and weekends, a pattern erated by assisted living residences. different from other housing types Data from approximately 10,000 other types of housing.-0.22 park- that usually have more visitors assisted living units was converted ing spaces during peaty weekday during peak driving hours. to form a composite profile of an driving hours compared to condo- assisted living residence and this miniums, which require 1.11 park- Service vehicles account for 15% of data was then compared with traf- ing spaces per unit, low/mod-rise traffic. This volume is also consid- fic'and parking data analyzed by apartments with 1.01 parking ered moderate. One or two emer- the Institute of Traffic Engineers. spaces per unit, or high rises at gencies per month may require 0.88 parking spaces. Even nursing dispatch of an ambulance, which is According to the ASHA study, total homes and retirement communities slightly higher for assisted living traffic volume generated by assisted require more parking than assisted than for other housing types. 4 living residences during a typical living residences. weekday averaged 1.72 trips per Editor's note: Copies of this useful unit. Single family homes, on the Traffic generators report are available for$25. Call other hand, generated 9.55 trips The main reason for the paucity of Julie Whitehead at ASHA at per unit during a typical weekday, parking problems is because assist- 202/659-3381 to obtain a copy. Assisted living residence traffic generation • EMPLOYEES V/Sl TOE novice To179L Avg. weekday a.m. peak hours .19/unit .11/unit .07/unit .37/unit 7 a.m.-9 a.m. 14 trips 9 trips 6 trips 29 trips Avg. weekday p.m. peak hours .16/unit .22/unit .06/unit .43/unit (4 p.m.-6 p.m.) 12.trips 17 trips 4 trips 34 trips . Avg. weekday .91/unit .55/unit .26/unit 1.72/unit (all hours) 71 trips 43 trips 20 trips 134 trips Source:Assisted Living Residences: A Study of Traffic and Parking Implications,American Seniors Housing Association April 1997 ARDITO, SWEENEY, STUSSE, ROBERTSON & DUPUY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MATTACHEESE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 25 MID-TECH DRIVE,SUITE C WEST YARMOUTH,MASSACHUSETTS 02673 EDWARD B SWEENEY EY,JR. TELEPHONE RICHARD P MORSE.JR. MICHAEL B STUSSE (508)775-3433 SV NEWELL DONNA M ROBERTSON FAX(508)790-4778 BET BETPAUL R.TEWELL MATTHEW J.DUPUY CHARLES MSABATT CHARLES J.ARDITO PC 'also admitted in MAINE PLEASE REFER TO FILE NUMBER July 8, 1999 40116 .5 Mr. David Reid, Chairman Yarmouth Board of Appeals Town Offices, Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: Heatherwood at Kings Way Phase II Modification Conversion of 14 Assisted Living Multi-family Units to 6 Multi- family Units - Phase III Creation of 68 Assisted Living Multi-family Units Dear Mr. Reid: As you are aware, this office represents the Trustees of Heatherwood O'Connell Nominee Trust, developers of Heatherwood at Kings Way. On July 1, 1999, I filed with the Board of Appeals plans showing the proposed Phase III of Heatherwood and a change to the prior floor plan of Phase II. In accordance with the previous Kings Way special permit and variances, as amended, these multi- family units have been previously approved by the Board of Appeals. Previous decisions do not specifically locate units on the ground, but rather require Site Plan Review by the Engineering Department and filing of the phase plans with the Board of Appeals. This procedure has been followed for all previous Kings Way phases, including Heatherwood Phase III which is currently before you. It has come to my attention that certain residents at Kings Way have or will raise the issue of whether or not assisted living multi-family units are allowed under the existing Kings Way special permit and variances. The answer to this question is yes, assisted living multi-family units are allowed under the existing Kings Way permits. Mr. David Reid, Chairman July 8, 1999 Page 2 The original 1975 special permit (Petition No. 1321) provided for the construction of 750 multi-family dwelling units pursuant to then Open Space Village Development Section of the Yarmouth Zoning By-law. The permit also provided for additional amenities such as community facilities, golf course and related accessory features and facilities for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the development. The 1975 Zoning By-Law Section 18. 13 defined multi-family and dwelling units as follows: "Dwelling, Multi-Family shall mean a dwelling containing three or more dwelling units, irrespective of tenure or ownership. Dwelling Unit shall mean living quarters for a single family plus not more than 4 boarders, lodgers, or domestic employees with cooking, living, sanitary and sleeping facilities independent of any other unit. " All of the proposed Heatherwood assisted living multi-family units contain, " . . . cooking, living, sanitary and sleeping facilities independent of any other unit. " As with Heatherwood Phases I and II, additional amenities, such as communal dining facilities, are also available at Heatherwood Phase III. The Board, in its 1986 decision modifying the design of the overall Kings Way Project, reemphasized the need for this type of housing, wherein it stated in said Decision (Petition No. 2268) : " . . .The present petitioner intends to acquire the property and to proceed with the project. For that purpose, and in light of prevailing circumstances, market demand for housing, including retirement housing, architectural design considerations, land use, golf course planning and conservation considerations, and financing requirements, the petitioner has had prepared, and has submitted to this Board, revised plans showing all additional phases of development, various housing types including those suitable for an aging population, a Mr. David Reid, Chairman July 8, 1999 Page 3 community center cluster, open space to meet aesthetic and conservation requirements, a golf course conforming to the requirements of sound land use planning and other related amenities and service facilities, including sewage disposal treatment in acccordance with currently available technology. . . " In that decision, the Heatherwood lot (then Developer Lot 62, now Land court Lot 51) was specifically designated for a maximum 235 multi-family units, with community center. An additional restriction was imposed on the Heatherwood Section in that because the multi-family units were to be designed for the elderly at least 25% of the Heathewood units must be one-bedroom units. Elderly housing or housing for our aging population has gone through many marketing name changes over the past two decades. In the past, terms such as active eldlerly or personal care units were common and were used at Heatherwood Phase I. At the time of construction of Heatherwood Phase II, the term of art had become assisted living. That designation for elderly housing remains currrent and is used in Phase III. Attached as Exhibit A is correspondence dated September 15, 1995, from Forest E. White, the then Inspector of Buildings, indicating that Heatherwood assisted living areas were in accordance with existing permits. Also attached, as Exhibit B, enclosed please find my September 8, 1995 correspondence to this Board indicating that among the Phase II Heatherwood units were proposed assisted living units. These were approved by Site Plan Review, this Board and the Building Inspector. Hopefully, this correspondence clarifies the use issue as raised. Very truly yours, Edward J. Sweeney, Jr. EJS:ics Enclosures ..-...."a.\U O : . o j v W N . OF YA R M 0 U T H ELECTRICAL . •r. - �' llaTi KcSj'TE 2H 1 ,� SOeTfi YARMOUTH MASSACHLSETTS O2664 e,. Kt./7i.;Ir::tEac/-Z•;� EXHIBIT `°+1 Ty4w.11,"t /y Telephone (50H1 i9R•2?;( G' 1 Q BUILD INC DEPARTMENT / I SepteMber 15, 1995 Shau ut Bank 77 Main Street Hartford, Connecticut 06115 and Goodwin, Procter & Boar Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 Re: Featherwood at Kings Way, Yarmouthcort, MA • . Dear Sirs: - You have requested information concerning the status of zoning approvals for Heatherwood at Kings Way in Ya"'r uthport, Massachusetts, including the proposed expansion of the facility to include 27 addition 1- and 2-bedroom residential units and an assisted living area for up to 14 residents (the "Project"). I am currently the Inspector of Buildings for the Town of Yarmouth and have been familiar with Heather cod for 7 years. To the best of and upon my current: review of the files of this office relating1c wcod, I hereby confirm the following as of this date: to Heather- .The Special Permits and Variances which authorize the entire Kings Way Development, including up to 235 residential units within Heatherkocd at Kings Way, remain in full force and effect. There are, to my knowledge, no violations to the Special Permits or Variances. Additional site plan review will be required for any further expansion of Ieatherwood at Kings Way. 2. A site plan for the Project was submitted on 8/22 and approved by Tcwn Departments on 9/15 ,1995 other zoningapprovals1995. There are no required for the Project. • 3. Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for all existing resi- dential units at Heather,aod.-- - --- • I trust the foregoing will meet your rei insets. Very ,..iiy yours,/,• j S: • -,- Forrest E. mite Inspector of Buildings f~ C4, 31.:ar arc.:, •ac;• 1 i ARDITO, SWEENEY, STUSSE, ROBERTSON & DUPUY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW EXHIBIT A MATTACHEESE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 25 MID-TECH DRIVE, SUITE C WEST YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS 02673 EDWARD J SWEENEY JR TELEPHONE(508)775-3433 MICHAEL B STUSSE FAX(508)790-4778 RICHARD A.DALTON DONNA M ROBERTSON MATTHEW J DUPUY CHARLES M.SABATT September 8, 1995 RUTH LAUGHLIN CHARLLESJ ES J.AR ARDITO, P C PLEASE REFER TO FILE 40116 . 05 NUMBER Mr. Leslie Campbell, Chairman Yarmouth Board of Appeals Yarmouth Town Offices Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: Heatherwood at Kings Way - Permit Compliance Phase II Dear Mr. Campbell: In accordance with special permit and variances issued by the Board of Appeals in Petition No. 1321 as modified by Petition Nos. 2048, 2268, 2448 , 2491, 2511, 3096 and 3152, enclosed please find • on behalf of Michael T. Downey, Trustee of The O'Connell Heatherwood Nominee Trust, the following plans (six sets) for review and approval stamp by the Board of Appeals as to permit compliance: Heatherwood Phase II revised plans as follows: • Sheet C-1 Title Sheet Sheet C-2 Proposed Site Plan (8/29/95 ) Sheet C-3 Detail Sheet 1 (7/21/95) Sheet C-4 Detail Sheet 2 (7/28/95) Additional background materials are as follows: 1. Old Kings Highway Historic District Certificates of Appropriateness are provided herewith. 2 . Site Plan Review Report with drainage calculations are provided herewith. i Mr. Leslie Campbell September 8, 1995 Page 2 3 . Groundwater Discharge Permit has been previously submitted. 4 . Water availability Letter has been previously submitted. 5 . The required Open Space for the entire development has been previously dedicated and documentation provided. 6. Planning Board Release of Covenant has previously been submitted. After construction of the 41 units containing 62 bedrooms, which include six one-bedroom and 21 two-bedroom independent living units and 14 one-bedroom assisted living units proposed hereby, the overall Kings Way unit and bedroom count, also including Kings Way Phase IV Westwoods, will be as follows: (Total Units Permitted) Units Bedrooms Admiralty Heights ( 19 ) 19 41 Heatherwood (235 ) 156 256 Kings Way (496 ) 265 530 • TOTALS 440 827 When the Board determines compliance, we would request that all six sets of plans be initialed and stamped in order that they be disbursed to: 1 . Board of Appeals 2 . Building Inspector 3 . Engineering Department 4 . Town Clerk 5 . Petitioner (two sets ) Please confirm that these plans will be considered for compliance at the Board of Appeals meeting on September 28, 1995 . Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, • Edward J. Sweeney, Jr. EJS:lcs Enclosure • ARDITO, SWEENEY, STUSSE, ROBERTSON & DUPUY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MATTACHEESE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 25 MID-TECH DRIVE,SUITE C WEST YARMOUTH,MASSACHUSETTS 02673 EDWARD J.SWEENEY.JR. RICHARD P MORSE,JR. MICHAEL B.STUSSE TELEPHONE(508)775-3433 BETSY NEWELL DONNA M.ROBERTSON FAX(508)790-4778 PAUL R.TARDIF' MATTHEW J.DUPUY CHARLES M.SABATT CHARLES J.ARDITO P C. 'also admitted in MAINE PLEASE REFER TO FILE NUMBER July 1, 1999 40116.5 Mr. David Reid, Chairman Yarmouth Board of Appeals Town Offices, Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: Heatherwood at Kings Way Phase II Modification Conversion of 14 Assisted Living Multi-family Units to 6 Multi- family Units - Phase III Creation of 68 Assisted Living Multi-family Units Dear Mr. Reid: In accordance with special permit and variances issued by the Boar d of Appeals in Petition No. 1321 as modified by Petition Nos. 2048, 2268, 2448, 2491, 2511, 3096 and 3152, enclosed please find on behalf of Michael T. Downey et al, Trustees of The O'Connell Heatherwood Nominee Trust, the following plans (six sets) for review and approval stamp by the Board of Appeals as to permit compliance: Heatherwood Phase II revised plans as follows: Floor Plan Revision - SK1, dated 6/21/99 This interior modification of Phase II does not involve any building exterior changes or site changes. Heatherwood Phase III plans as follows: Sheet A-0 First and Second Floor Key Plan Sheet C-i Title Sheet Sheet C-2 Legend and General Notes Sheet C-3 Layout, Materials and Utilities Plan Sheet C-4 Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet C-5 Landscaping Plan Sheet C-6 Detail Sheet 1 Sheet C-7 Detail Sheet 2 Sheet C-8 Detail Sheet 3 C Mr. David Reid July 1, 1999 Page 2 Additional background information and materials are as follows: 1. A Certificate of Appropriateness for Phase III has been obtained after approval by the Yarmouth Old Kings Highway Historic District Committee on June 17, 1999 2 . Site Plan Review Comment Sheet dated June 15, 1999 is provided herewith. The plans have been modified to meet the requirements of Site Plan Review. All technical requirements will be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Groundwater Discharge Permit has been previously provided. 4 . The required Open Space for the entire development has been previously dedicated and documentation provided. 5 . A release from the Planning Board covenant has been previously provided. 6. Water availability letter has been previously provided. Heatherwood at Kings Way is located on Land Court Plan 34279-G and is shown as Lot 51 (previously noted as Lot 62 on Developer Subdivision Development Plan) . The existing permits limit the number of multi-family units on Lot 51 to a maximum of 235 . Of the number of multi-family units constructed on Lot 51, twenty-five per cent (25%) , must be one-bedroom units. The modification of Phase II and construction of Phase III comply as follows: • Mr. David Reid July 1, 1999 Page 3 UNITS BEDROOMS 1 BR 2 BR Total 1BR 2BR Total Units Units Units Units Units BRS Phase I 36 79 115 36 158 194 Phase II Independent (ILU) 6 21 27 6 42 48 Personal Care (ALU) 14 - 14 14 - 14 Subtotal Phase II 20 21 41 20 42 62 Total Phases I and II 56 100 156 56 200 256 Phase III Conversion - from existing ALU ( 14) - ( 14 ) ( 14 ) - ( 14 ) Conversion to new ILU - 6 6 - 12 12 New ALU 54 14 68 54 28 82 Subtotal Phase III 40 20 60 54 40 94 Total Phases I, II and III 96 120 216 110 240 350 44% 56% 100% 31% 69% 100% After construction of the Heatherwood Phase II modification and completion of the Heatherwood Phase III, the overall Kings Way Unit and Bedroom count will be as follows: Units To Date Bedrooms Admiralty Heights 19 41 Heatherwood (original Phase II) 156 256 Kings Way (through Phase 8) 428 856 TOTALS TO DATE: 603 1, 153 Heatherwood Phase II Modification and Phase III Net subtotal: 60 94 NEW KINGS WAY TOTALS 663 1,247 Mr. David Reid July 1, 1999 Page 4 When the Board determines compliance, we would request that all six sets of plans be initialed and stamped in order that they be disbursed to: 1. Board of Appeals 2 . Building Inspector 3. Engineering Department 4 . Town Clerk 5 . Petitioner (two sets) It is my understanding that this matter will be placed on the Board of Appeals agenda for Thursday, July 8, 1999. Very truly yours, Edward J. Sweeney, Jr. EJS:lcs Enclosures cc: Mr. James Brandolini, Building Commissioner Mr. James Klucznik, Esquire Mr. Rick Maranhas