The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4994 Evangelical Baptist Church Decision TC 02.02.23FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION February 2, 2023 4994 January 26, 2023 '23FTB2P.m 0=46_ RTC' Evangelical Baptist Church of South Yarmouth, Inc. PROPERTY: 10 Carter Road, 63 and 69 Pond Street, and 1240 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA Map 60, Parcels 101, 102,103 and 104 Zoning District: B-2 and R-40 Title: Book 1512, Page 517 and Book 2956, Page 226 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Sean Igoe, Dick Neitz, Jay Fraprie and Tim Kelley 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 pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning Bylaw § 104.3.5 and/or per §202.5 to combine and redivide lots and create 3 improved and non -conforming lots in two zoning districts. The Property is located in the B-2 and R40 Zoning Districts and is improved with 6 total structures consisting of the Evangelical Baptist Church, the associated school, which used to house the Trinity Christian Academy, a two-story house, a one car garage, and 2 sheds, plus paved parking areas on either side of the church along Route 28. The property is comprised of 6 parcels, plus a twenty -foot former Way from Pond Street, which is owned by the Petitioner. The entire complex has frontage on Route 28 to the south, Carter Road to the West, and Pond Street to the east, and consists of a total of 67,930 square feet. The existing structures, with a building coverage of 13.2%, comply with front and side yard setbacks. According to the Assessor Field Cards, the school and the house were built in 1910, and the church in 1963. The properties are divided into two different zoning districts, with the portion lying closest to Route 28 being in the B-2 zoning district, and the rear portion of the campus being in the R-40 zoning district. The common zoning line actually runs through the rear half of the existing church, with the school and the house structures being located fully within the R-40 zoning district. In the warmer months, the congregation currently meets in the church for religious services. In the colder months, they meet in the school to save on heating. Congregants also meet in the school 3 times each week, year-round, for bible study. The school also houses the church administrative business. Trinity Christian Academy operated in the school from 1967 through 2003. The house at 63 Pond Street is in some disrepair. Each structure has its own septic system, although none have been tested recently, nor did they need to be as there has been no change of ownership since 1979, when the applicant acquired most of the properties. The proposal is to combine and redivide the 6 parcels into 3 separate lots, with each lot having one structure located thereon. The one car garage will be removed. The proposed Approval Not Required Plan shows that Lot 1A will contain the church building, and a parking lot. The zoning district line will continue to run through the building. The majority of the lot will be located in the B2 zoning district, and will have 21,103 square feet of area, where 20,000 square feet is required in that zoning district. Lot 2A will contain the school building, located in the R-40 zoning district, but having 25,573 square feet. Finally, Lot 3A will be completely in the R-40 zoning district and contain the house, and have 21,254 square feet of area. One abutter opposed the plan, expressing concerns in written correspondence and in person that Lot 2A, containing the school and paved lot in the B-2 Zoning District would ultimately be used for business purposes. The Board explained that the zoning districts would dictate what uses would be allowed on the lot, and that the Petitioner was not proposing, nor legally able, to rezone the lot without approval at an annual Town Meeting. Although not expressed as relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as it is not necessary for future uses of the property, it was the consensus of the Board that the most likely use of the school would either be to continue its educational 1 religious uses, or the lot would be used for residential purposes. Numerous letters in support from abutters were submitted and read into the record, each expressing that the relief be granted, that the proposal would maintain the residential atmosphere, and that additional housing could be created without an increase in traffic, noise or nuisance. Although the Board questioned the configuration of the new lots and whether alternatives were considered, they agreed that the applicant's proposed lot layout was within the applicant's sole discretion. The Board then considered the request pursuant to Zoning Bylaw Section 104.3.5, the purpose of which is to "provide for the orderly, efficient, and appropriate combination and/or re -division of multiple non -conforming lots where there is insufficient land to permit the resulting lot(s) to comply with the current dimensional requirements of the Bylaw" and to "accomplish maximum feasible compliance with the intent and purpose of the current zoning bylaws where full compliance is not possible but where development of the available land may otherwise be accomplished without substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the bylaws." The Board found that the petitioner was not increasing the number of non -conforming individually buildable lots over the number of such lots as presently exist, that the combination or re -division did not increase any pre-existing non -conformity nor create any new non -conformity as to any existing structure or use of the lots involved or affected by the combination or re -division, that no new vacant non -conforming lots were created, and that the resulting and affected lots as proposed would be consistent with the current and future development of the neighborhood and zoning district, would not cause or substantially contribute to any undue nuisance, hazard, or congestion in the neighborhood or zoning district, would substantially promote the intent and purpose of the Bylaws currently in effect, and the entire combination or redivision proposal would be consistent with the intent and purpose of Section 104.3.5. The plan does show lots which are larger and more conforming than the lots previously laid out. Because of the bisecting zoning district line, any future uses which are not allowed in the respective zoning districts would need relief from the Board, which would also protect the abutters and the neighborhood from any intrusion of business uses in the residential zone. Accordingly, a motion was made by Mr. Fraprie, seconded by Mr. Kelley, to grant the request for the Special Permit, without conditions. 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 Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See bylaw § 103.2.5, MGL c40A §9) Sean Igoe, Vice Chair 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 #4994 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