No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecisions 1768 to 4432TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: SEP 1,6 1981 Petitioner: Ronald S. Rudnick South Village Nominee. Trust IG I South Sea Ave. West-Yarmouth,Mass. DECISION Hearing Date: 7/9/81 Petition No.: 1768 The petitioner requested a special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow the construction and occupancy of an Open Space Village Development consisting of 65 dwelling units contained in 8 buildings and one accessory building on a parcel of land containing 72+ acres. Said property is located on South Sea Ave., in West Yarmouth, and is shown as Lot X1 on Assessors map 13, and lot S1 on Assessors map 20. }:embers of Board of Appeals present: Robert Sherman, Donald Henderson, David Oman, Herbert Renkainen, Joseph Pandiscio. It appearing that notice of said heari� 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 6/24/81 and 7/1/81, the hearing was opened and held on the first date written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Attorney Richard Anderson; Dorothy Dowd; John Peters; Jean & Paul Luizzo; Richard F. Murphy; Lawrence D. Simonetti; :.illouise Barrett; Johnny Yee; Louise K. Knight; Mr. Laird; Paul Baker; Mr. Rudnick. Lhe following appeared in opposition: Joseph Montminy; Mr. Wallace; Mr. Chase; Mr. O'Donnell; several petitions with many names. Reasons for decision: A duly advertised public hearing was held July 9, 1981. Petitioner was represented by Attorney Richard C. Anderson and -Attorney Michael Ford. The original request as set forth in the application was for 65 dwelling units in eight buildings situated on seventy-two acres of land, but at the hearing the petition was amended to a request for fifty-five units on 103 acres of land. The vast majority of this land is salt marsh and petitioner represented that the ma.%imum number of units allowable on this parcel utilizing the incentive bonus of the by-law is fifty-five units and the Board treated the petition as.a request for the lesser -number of units. At the present t°me, there are thirty-three cottages on- the property and petitioner has filed a -condominium master deed with the Barnstable. County Registry. District creating a cottage colony condominium. A full hearing was held on July 9, 1981, complete notes were kept by the Board's secretary and at the conclusion of the hearing the Board voted to as, petitioner for certain technical and other data in written form to be presented on or before the 3oard's regular meeting of August 13, 1981. It was also unanimously voted to take a view of the property on July 16, 1981. The petition was then taked T_nder advisement. All members of the Board who sat on the appeal viewed the property as a group with representatives of the petitioner, members of the press and other interested parties on July 16, 1981. 4 Petition #1768 Page 2 On August 13, 1981, the Board had a 211 hour discussion of the petition and went through -the Yarmouth Open Space by-law, Sec. 175-4200, paragraph by paragraph, to determine if the•petitioner met the criteria set forth therein. At that time, and at the original hearing, consideration was given to the materials submitted by petitioner, the reports submitted by the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Water Department, Fire Department, Board of Health and Police Chief. Each member had available the fifteen pages of written notes of the July 9th hearing prepared by our secretary. The supplemental materials submitted by petitioner per our request of July-9th, were also present. Consideration was given to the comments of interested parties made at the July 9th hearing and to the various letters and cards either supporting or opposing the request. . The Board found that the petition did not meet Yarmouth zoning by-law objectives. Although 103 acres were included in the petition, about 92 acres are salt marsh, pro- tected from development by the Yarmouth Conservancy District by-law and various state wetlands laws, including an order under Chapter 130 Sec. 105 of the Mass. General Laws, duly registered in the Barnstable Registry District. The land being used for open space would be required to remain undeveloped under existing law anyway. The upland would be used far more intensively than it is at present and approximately double the number of units would be built on the upland as could be built under a con- ventional plan. Further, the character of the eleven acres of upland on which the development would take place would be significantly changed. The native vegetation would almost totally be removed and almost the entire eleven acres would be filled. Petitioner's engineer stated there would be as much as five feet of fill in places and even the parking areas would have retaining walls at the easterly end to contain the fill. The character of South Sea Ave. and the surrounding areas is small, single and.in some cases, two family houses, built amid native pines, oaks and cedars. This project of townhouses built on a mountain of fill would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In accordance with Sec. 4232, copies of the application and supporting documents were submitted to the Town Boards named therein. The Conservation Commission expressed several concerns and stated the proposal would have an adverse effect on the wetlands because of the density and amount of fill. This Board agrees with that report. The Planning Board.submitted-a lengthy report -raising many concerns and expressing opposition to the project. Mr..Donnelly, the Town Planner, stated at the hearing -that. in his opinion the site would support -only 20 - 24 units.- This Board agrees-i::ith the --- concerns of the Planning Board set forth in their -report. - The Board of -Health and Water'Department raised technical questions about the pro- ject which were of concern to -us. The criteria the Board must of the by-law and the Board finds doesnt preserve any land as open kept open under the existing laws eleven acres of upland where the are obliterated by fill. In thes use to grant the request are set forth in Sec. 4236 the plan does not meet these criteria. This plan space for conservation or recreation that wouldn't be . Rather than utilizing the natural features of the construction would take place, these natural features e respects, it is clearly not superior to a conventional Petition #1768 Page 3 plan. With respect to the number of units allowed under the formula of Sec. 4241, there was much dispute between the petitioner, the Town Planner, and Planning Board. What was clear, however, was that petitioner's calculations took into account maximum use of the incentive bonus of Sec. 4242, whereas the Town Planner and Planning Board felt that the proposal was not entitled to that bonus. Multi -family dwellings, which these are, can only be allowed under Sec. 4245 if all of the requirements of that section are met. Subsection (a) states "There shall be minimal disruption of established neighborhoods, evidenced by not more than 30 single family dwelling structures existing at time of application being within 500 feet of any proposed -multi -family or attached single family structure." Petitioner stated that in fact there are 58 single family houses within the 500 foot circle, but that the operative words of the section were "minimal disruption" and not the number of houses. The Board disagrees with petitioner's interpretation, but even if it agreed, believes there would be extreme disruption of the neighborhood by construction of this project due to the fill, the number of units, the increased traffic on South Sea Ave. and the change to year round use from the present seasonal use. The Board realizes that the present 33 cottages may be winterized at some future time, but this is not certain. !hat is certain is that if the request is allowed, there could be an immediate doubling of the number of people using the locus on a year round basis and this would create cmdue congestion. Further, Sec. 4245 (d) cannot be met as there would be extreme ecological disturbance. The topography of the eleven acre building site would totally change due to the fill and almost all existing trees and vegetation would be removed. Under Sec.4245 (e) maintenance of the character of the neighborhood is required by effective use of topography among other things. This is not met either, as the topo- graphy of the entire contiguous upland parcel would totally change. The size of the Buildings would also be out of character with the neighborhood. The request for a special permit is denied. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, Robert Sherman, David Oman, Herbert Renkainen, .',oseph Pandiscio. 3 voted in favor of denial, 2 voted not in favor. :herefore,the petition is denied for the above stated reasons. ROBERT W. SHERMAh Clerk C TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: 14AY 2 6 19319- Petitioner: Charles R.0'Leary 8 Marguerite Rd. Walpole, Mass., 02081 Hearing Date: 5/13/82 Petition No.: 1839 Dover Cottage #6, South Sea Village West Yarmouth, Mass. DECISION The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow the addition of a bathroom, 4' x 8', to enclose existing outdoor shower, to an existing non -conforming cottage being in the South Sea Village. Property located on South Sea Ave., W. Yarmouth, Mass., being Dover Cottage #6, shown on Assessors map'#13-X1. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Thomas George, David Oman, Morris Johnson, Herbert Renkainen. 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 there- by and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 4/28/82 and 5/5/82, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Charles O'Leary. The following appeared in opposition: None. Reasons for decision: This is a request to allow a 4' x 8' addition to an existing non -conforming cottage in South Sea Village, so called. Petitioner was to purchase this cottage the day after the hearing, and the Building Inspector informed the Board that the construction had already been substantially compelted by the hearing date. The Board is satisfied that the con- struction of the 4' x 8' addition will not constitute any undue nuisance, hazard or con- gestion and will not cause any harm to the established character of the neighborhood. However, the Board is concerned that the work has already been started. The special per -- mit to alter the non -conforming cottage as requested, is granted on the following con- ditions: 1) After the expiration of the appeal period, if no -appeal is filed, petitioner must obtain all necessary permits to allow the work to proceed. In imposing this condition, the Board is aware that it cannot authorize any work to be done without permits, but is simply endeavoring to make it perfectly clear to the petitioner that the permits must be obtained. 2) The spetic system for this cottage must be upgraded to meet all requirements of the present local and state.codes. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Thomas George, Herbert Renkainen, Morris Johnson. All voted in favor of granting as requested. Therefore, petition is granted as requested for the above stated reasons. No permit issued until 20 days from the date of filing the decision with the Town Clerk. THOMAS GEORGE Clerk pro tem TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: 13 Petitioner: William L. Blanchard 8 Bridge St. Medfield, Mass., 02052 DECISION Hearipg Date: • 8/12/82 Petition No.: 1859 The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow the addition for bathroom & storage'.area, 5' x 18.28', to enclose exist- ing shower to an existing, non -conforming cottage in South Sea _Village. Property located on South Sea Ave.,W.Yarmouth, Mass., being Avon Cottage V4 in South Sea Village. Also shown on Assessors map #13-X1. I --- Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Robert Sherman, Myer Singer, David Oman, Lee Marchildon. 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�lnffected thereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 7/28/82 and 8/4/82, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. Blanchard. The following appeared in opposition: By letter, Planning Board. Reasons for decision: This is a petition for a variance and/or special permit to allow the addition of a bathroom and storage area and to enclose an existing shower on an existing non -conforming cottage on the property commonly known as South Sea Village, located on the easterly side of South Sea Ave., in West Yarmouth. Corres- pondence was received from the Planning Board to the effect that that Board is opposed to any enlargement or extension of non -conforming cottage colonies. A lengthly memo from the Board of Health set forth the requirements for upgrading the septic system,should the request be granted. The cottage involved is designated #4 on Land Court plan 21952B-1, and petitioner submitted a sketch the night of the hearing, showing the proposed addition. There are 33 cottages in this cottage colony condominiums. This particular cottage is built on the northerly lot line of the tract. Petitioner indicated that when he purchased the property, that he had been advised that he would need approval f,3r any exterior changes. Under Section 1532 of the by-law, this Board may grant a special permit for.an extension, alteration or change in a non -conforming user provided iz finds that the change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non -conforming use. The Board believes that the 33 cottages already existing on the tract constitute in their present configuration, a maximum use of the tract, and that to allow additions to these cottages will result in more intensive use by larger numbers of people, and will be overburdening of the land. Such additions will cause additional congestion and traffic on South Sea Ave., a very busy street. That will result in seasonal cottages becoming year round, winterized structures, and the tract cannot support these in the Boards opinion. The Board finds that the requested extension will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non -conforming use, and consequently, the request is denied. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, Robert Sherman, Myer Singer, David Oman, Petition #1859 Page 2 Lee Marchildon. "All. voted -in" yfavor�7of-, denial, Therefore, the petition is denied for the above stated reasons. ROBERT W. SHERMAN Clerk _4 TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: GCf 2 1 1982 Petitioner: William L. Blanchard 8 Bridge St. Medfield, Mass., 02052 Hearing Date: 9/23/82 Petition No.: 1875 South Sea Village - Avon Cottage #4 West Yarmouth, Mass. DECISION The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow an addition for a bathroom and closet, 5'4" x 12'8", removing an existing out- door shower, on a non -conforming cottage, Avon Cottage #4, South Sea Village. Prop- erty located on Seaview Ave., W.Yarmouth, Mass., and shown on Assessors map #13-X1. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, Myer Singer: It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice there- of to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publi- cation in the Yarmouth Sun on 9/8/82 and 9/15/82, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Charles O'Leary. William Blanchard, Petitioner. The following appeared in opposition: None. Reasons for decision: This is an appeal to allmi an addition of a bathroom and closet, 514" x 12'8", to an existing non -conforming cottage and also to remove an existing outdoor shower. On August 12, 1982, the Board heard a similar appeal covering this same property, which was denied. The Planning Board, in Appeal #1875, questioned whether or not petitioner could come back to the Board without satisfying the requirements of Chapter 40A, Sec. 16. The Board of Appeals decided that this appeal was different from the earlier appeal, and decided to hear it on its merits. This Board is concerned, as is the Planning Board, that seasonal cottage colonies on small parcels of land, will be converted into year round 'homes, thus causing an overburdening of the land. However, this appeal involves a tiny addition to a tiny cottage, and the only significant change is to pro- vide an adequate bathroom inside the renovated structure. An unsightly, unsanitary outdoor shower is being removed, and the new addition will meet the setback require- ments of the present by-law. This appeal is similar to another appeal here earlier this year, involving a cottage in the same cottage colony condominiums, and the Board• granted a special permit in that case. The Board finds that the addition will not cause any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion, or cause any harm to the established or future character of the neighborhood or town. The cottage will remain a one bed- room cottage, for seasonal use only. Consequently, the special permit is granted, as requested, on the following conditions: 1) the outdoor shower is to be removed, and 2) the entire septic system for the cottage is to be upgraded in accordance with specifications set forth by the Board of Health, and 3) as represented, the cottage is to be used on a seasonal basis only, from May 1 through November 1. Petition No.1875 Page 2 Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, Myer Singer. All voted unanimously in favor of granting request, with conditions. Therefore, the petition is granted as requested for the above stated reasons and with the above stated conditions. No permit issued until 20 days from the date of filing the decision with the Town Clerk. MYER R. SINGER Clerk, pro tern Z2� TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: DEC 2 1 1982 Petitioner: Frank P. Lomano 133 Presidents Lane Quincy, Mass., 02169 Hollywood Cottage #26 `( So. Sea Village W. Yarmouth, Mass. DECISION Hearing Date: 12/16/82 Petition No.: 1892 The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow an addition to the existing cottage, so called "Hollywood Cottage #26", being in South Sea Village. Said addition to be 22' x 4" x 8' screened in porch. Property located on South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth, Mass., and shown on Assessors map #13-X1. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Thomas Kennedy, Les Campbell, DeWitt Davenport. 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 12/1/82 and 12/8/82, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. & Mrs. Lomano. The following appeared in opposition: None. Reasons for decision: This is a request for a special permit to allow a 22'4" x 8' screened -in porch to be added to an existing cottage designated "Hollywood Cottage #26", which is located in South Sea Village, so called, on the east side of,South Sea Ave., West Yarmouth. Petitioner represented to the Board that he had purchased the cottage for seasonal use and that the porch would not be permanently enclosed and/or heated, and would not change the seasonal usage of the building. This Board is authorized to grant a special permit, provided it finds that the request will not create any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion, or cause any harm to the established or future character of the neighborhood or town. The cottage in question is located a good distance from the other cottages on the tract. There will be no change in use or in the intensity of use caused by.granting this request, and consequently, the special permit is granted on the condition the cottage continue to be used on a seasonal basis only and that the screened in porch not be permanently enclosed or heated.. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, DeWitt Davenport. All voted in favor of granting petitioners request. Therefore, the petition is granted as requested for the above stated reasons and with the above stated conditions. No permit issued until 20 days from date of filing decision with the Town Clerk. ROBERT W. SHERMAN, Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: 14AY iC Petitioner: Dorothy Garner 49 Monson St. Brockton, Mass., 02401 �C2 S�'. Lf✓ �a DECISION Hearing Date: 3/10/83 Petition No.: 1918 The petitioner requested a special permit and/or variance from the Board of Appeals to allow for an addition of 12;6" x 24'6" x 40'6" x 11'3", encompassing a wider bath, bedroom, enclosed porch and open deck. Property located at" -South Sea_ (Aye., W.Yarmouth, Mass., and shown on Assessors map ff13-X1, South Sea Village. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell, Myer Singer, Thomas Kennedy. 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 2/23/83 and 3/2/83, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Dorothy Garner, petitioner, her daughter and son. The following appeared in opposition: by letter, Planning Board. Reasons for decision: This is a request for a special permit to allow an addition to a non -conforming structure in the South Sea Village condominiums, located on the easterly side of South Sea Ave. in W.Yarmouth. The cottage in question, and 32 other cottages, are located on a tract of about 11 acres. All of the buildings predate zoning, and the cottage colony has been converted to a condominium ownership. The petitioner recently purchased this cottage and was told at the time of sale that she could do anything she wished, and did not understand the changes would require favorable action by this Board. The present structure consists of a building 40' long x about 12' wide. Petitioner submitted 2 proposals to the Board. The first proposal would have created a structure 52'6" long x 24'6" side, with an "L". If this proposal were granted, it would triple the size of the existing structure and in essence, would create a 2 bedroom, year round dwelling,with the potential for converting the screened in porch and open deck into 2 additional rooms. The Board feels that to grant this request would set a bad precedence for this condominium and would create undue nuisance, hazard and congestion. Further, it could change the character of the neighborhood and therefore, this request is denied. However, petitioner submitted a second proposal entitled "addition #411, which showed an enclosed porch 12'3" x 16'3" and an open deck, plus some interior renova- tions. Originally this proposal was also denied, but at the request of the petitioner it was reconsidered at a subsequent public meeting of the Board. After extensive discussion, it was decided that a screened porch 12'3" x 16'3", as shown on the aforementioned sketch, would not create any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion, and Pet. #1918 Page 2 consequently, the Board unanimously voted to grant such a screened in porch on the following conditions: 1) under no circumstances is the porch to be permanently enclosed except with screens; 2) permission to build the open deck as shown on the sketch labeled "addition #4" is denied. The Board believes that the Building Inspector has the authority to grant permission to build an appropriate set of steps or landing to provide proper access to the dwelling; 3) use of the cottage is to remain seasonal only, and the septic system is to be upgraded to meet all requirements of the Board of Health. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell, Myer Singer, Thomas Kennedy. All voted unanimously in favor to grant as stated above. Therefore, the petition is granted with the above stated conditions. No permit issued until 20 days from date of filing the decision with the Town Clerk. MYER R. SINGER Clerk pro tern TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: Petitioner: Joseph McCarthy 24 Dix St. Dorchester, Mass., 02122 DECISION Hearing Date: 6/23/83 Petition No.: 1956 The petitioner requested approval and/or special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow a newly constructed deck to remain on an already existing non -conforming dwelling,being Unit #10 in South Sea Village Condominiums, South Sea Ave., W. Yarmouth, Mass. and being in the Wetlands Conservancy District. Property shown on Assessors map #13;Xl. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, Augustine Murphy. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice there- of to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publi- cation in the Yarmouth Sun on 6/8/83 and 6/15/83, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: William Weller, appearing for petitioner. The following appeared in opposition: None. Reasons for decision: This is a request to allow a newly reconstructed deck to remain on an already existing non -conforming dwelling, designated as unit 10 in the South Sea Village Condominium, situated on the east side of South Sea Ave., in West Yarmouth. Reports were received from the Conservation Commission, Board of Health and Planning Board. The Planning Board felt that since the deck was created without a building permit, the petition should be denied. The deck in question is within 14' of the edge of the wetland,nama2k7the=marsh surrounding Lewis Pond, a tidal body of water. This structure, in the Boards opinion, is too close to the wetland, and will cause undue nuisance, hazard and congestion. The addition is large in terms of the size of the cottage, and the potential to enclose the deck and create another room, practically in the marsh, is present. The Board feels that the deck is unsuitable development in a Wetlands Conservancy District. .Consequently, the request is denied. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, Augustine Murphy. Unanimous in favor of denial. Therefore, the petition is denied for the above stated reasons. MYER R. SINGER Clerk pro tem r- TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: Petitioner: Charles & Eleanor O'Leary 8 Marguerite Rd. Walpole, Mass., 02031 DECISION Hearing Date: 9/22/83 Petition No.:' 1985 The petitioners requested a variance and/or special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow an existing porch to be enclosed with screens and glass, on an exist- ing non -conforming cottage. Property located off South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth, Mass., South Sea Village, Unit #6, shown on Assessors map #13-X1. Also, to allow a free standing, 8' x 8' tool shed. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, James MacNeill, Myer Singer. 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 tYereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 9/7/83 and 9/14/83, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. & Mrs. O'Leary, petitioners; Mr. & Mrs. Lomano; Richard Murphy. The following appeared in opposition: By.:letter, Planning Board. Reasons for decision: This is a request for a special permit to allow an existing porch on an existing, non -conforming cottage, Unit #6 in the South Sea Village Condominiums, located on South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth, to be enclosed with snrc-ens and glass. The Board has had a number of these requests, and although each appeal must stand on its own merits, believes that in general, allowing improvements to the 33 cottages situated on approxi- mately 11 acres of upland, is beneficial to the neighborhood. The Board believes the petitioner has demonstrated that this request will not cause any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion, or cause any harm to the established character of the neighborhood. Consequently, the special permit is granted on the following conditions: 1) There is to be no heat installed on the porch, and the cottage is to be used on a seasonal basis as it has been in the past. 2)The septic system, if necessary, be upgraded to meet current requirements of Board of Health for a single family house. The Board, however, notes that the existing system probably meets Board of Health requirements, in that a new system was apparently installed within the last year. There is a second part to petitioners request, namely, construction of a detatched tool shed, 8' x 8'. The Board feels that to grant such a detatched structure in this cottage colony would set a bad precidence and feels that it could contribute to conges- tion within tle cottage colony. In addition, it could be unsightly, and consequently, this portion of the request is denied. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, Les Campbell, Thomas Kennedy, James MacNeill, Myer Singer. Unanimous in favor of enclosing the porch with screens and glass and unanimously,,opposed to the tool shed. Therefore, the petition is granted to enclose the porch as requested, and that portion of the request for the tool shed is denied. No permit issued until 20 days from date of filing decision with the Town Clerk. MYER R. SINGER, Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: Off 7 Hearing Date: 9/22/83 Petitioner: Frank & Millie Lomano Petition No.: 1988 133 Presidents Lane Quincy, Mass., 02169 l� DECISION �✓'� Sli S�.GCG�' The petitioners requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow patio doors to be installed on addition of a porch on non -conforming cottage, said addition having been granted by Board of Appeals in December of 1932, Appeal #1892. Said cottage being Unit #26 in South Sea Village, South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth, Mass., shown on Assessors map #13-X1. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, James MacNeill, Thomas Kennedy, Les Campbell. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice there- of to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publi- cation in the Yarmouth Sun on 9/7/83 and 9/14/83, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. & Mrs. Lomano, petitioners. The following, appeared in opposition: By letter, Planning Board. Reasons for decision: This is a request for a special permit to allow patio doors to be installed on a porch to be constructed on a non -conforming cottage, which cottage is Unit #26 in South Sea Village condominiums so called, South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth. Petitioner already has from this Board, a permit to construct the requested porch. However, that decision required that the porch be enclosed with screens only, and there is some question as to whether or not patio doors would be covered by that decision. No additional living space over and above what is already authorized would be created, and the Board is satisfied that the request will not create any harm to the established or future character of the neighborhood. On the contrary, this addition and others like it, may very well upgrade South Sea Village, and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. However, the Board is concerned with septic systems in this area, and consequently, the permit is granted on the following conditions: 1) There is to be no heat installed in the porch, and the dwelling is to be used on a seasonal basis only, as it has been in the past. 2) As requested by the Board of Health, the septic system must be upgraded to meet the current requirements for a single family house. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, James MacNeill, Thomas Kennedy, Les Campbell. Unanimous in favor. Therefore, the petition is granted as requested, with the above stated conditions. No permit issued until 20 days from date of filing decision with the Town Clerk. MYER R. SINGER Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: Petitioner: Paul & Lorraine Larrabee 184 South Sea Ave.,'Unit #20 W. Yarmouth, Mass. DECISION Hearing Date: 1/12/84 Petition No.: 2022 ° The petitioners requested a special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow a closed in screen porch to be part of the living area on cottage located in South'Sea Village, South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth, Mass., shown on Assessors map #13-X1. Said cottage being Unit•420. Members of Board of Appeals present: David Oman, Myer Singer, Judith Sullivan, Les Camp- bell, Thomas 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 12/28/83 and 1/4/84, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. & Mrs. Larrabee, petitioners. The following appeared in opposition: None. Reasons for decision: This is a request for a special permit, to allow the closing in an existing screen porch. The work having already baving already been completed without a building permit. As the petitioner indicated, they were not aware a permit was necessary, having been notifie by the management of their condominium that they could to anything to the unit, provided they did not make structural changes. The Board felt the changes would not increase the use of the property so as:to create any additional burden to the condominium complex. Since tiie living area was not increased, no additional requirements would'be needed for parking or rubbish or storage of personal items. The Board does not address the-que9tion of whether or not the septic system is adequate, but grants the permit on the basis of no additional nuisance, hazard or congestion, on the condition that'.the-septic system be up- dated if required by the Board of Health. Members of Board voting: David Oman, Myer Singer, Judy Sullivan, Les Campbell, Thomas George. Unanimous in favor of petitioners request with the condition that the septic system be updated if required by the Board of Health. Therefore, the special permit is granted for the above stated reasons. with the condition that the septic system be updated if required by the Board of Health. No permit issued until 20 days from the date of filing the decision with the Town Clerk. MYER R. SINGER Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: Hearing Date: 3/8/84 Petitioner: John Kane Petition No.: 2045 25 Hill St. 1 C Norwood, Mass., 02062 Ss� 0^'L DECISION L,cAe The petitioner requests a special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow an addition to an existing, non -conforming cottage in South Sea Village, said addition to enlarge existing kitchen, bath and bedroom. Also, to add a porth on the front of cottage, on existing concrete. Property located on South Sea Ave., W.Yarmouth, Mass., shown on Assessors map #13-X1. Members of Board of Appeals present: Judy Sullivan, Donald Henderson, Richard Neitz, Thomas George, Les Campbell. 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Dennis -Yarmouth Reg.on 2/23/84 and 3/l/84, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of of the petition: Mr. & Mrs. John Kane, petitioners. The following appeared in opposition: By letter, Eleanor M. McKenzie. Reasons for decision: Petitioner requested to be allowed to withdraw the petition without prejudice, and the Board voted unanimously to allow him to do so. Members of Board voting: Judy Sullivan, Donald Henderson, Richard Neitz, Thomas George, Les Campbell. Therefore, the petition is withdrawn without prejudice. MYER R. SINGER Clerk TOWN OF YARPIOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk M � , Ij Q Petitioner: Paul Larrabee 184 South Sea Ave. Unit #20 Linwood West Yarmouth, Mass. RECEIVED i984 AUS 24 Pit 1: 24 �1 10TIN OF `fARMOUTH TOYIN CLERK & TREASURER DECISION Hearing Date: 6/28/84 Petition: #2083 The petitioner request a special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow a 141X12' open deck to be added to the front of the cottage. The deck will be of pressure treated lumber and will be purchased in kit form from a lumber supply co. As shown on Assessors Map#13-XI. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell Augustine Murphy, Myer Singer, Judy Sullivan. 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 that public notice *of such hearing having beerr given by publication in the Dennis -Yarmouth Register on 6/14/84 and 6/21/84, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: None The following appeared in opposition: None REASON FOR DECISION The Petitioner, by letter, requested permission to withdraw without prejudice and as there was no one present at the hearing who was interested in the matter the Board unanimously approved the withdrawal. However, the Board unanimouly refused to return the $75.00 filing fee which petitioner had also requested. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Les Campbell, Myer Singer, Judy Sullivan. Unanimous in their decision to allow to withdraw without prejudice. Therefore, the petitioner's request is approved, for all of the above stated reasons. No permit to be issued. Myer R. Singer Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH 4' BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk MAY 2 9 i985 °` `t�: = Hearing Date: 4/25/85 1 .=..:.. r Petitioner: Leonard & Olivia Jalbert ;:;, 2.: _n Petition No.: 2180 7 Old Village Road Sturbridge, MA 01566 �DECISION�, The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval and/or special permit to allow: a) to construct a new septic system facility. b) enclose existing porch with storm windows. c) construct new 12' X 14' living room addition. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, Judith Sullivan, James MacNeil, Fritz Lindquist. 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in The Register on 4/11/85 and 4/18/85, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared infavor of the petition: Leonard and Olivia Jalbert. The following appeared in opposition: None. REASON FOR DECISION: sows e Petitioner submitted a plan to the Board, which is on file with the Appeal that the site and the proposed addition. The cottage in question is located in the uth Sea Village Condominuim, so called, on South Sea Ave. in West Yarmouth. The entire cottage colony is non -conforming and was made into condominiums prior to the present provision of the by law dealing with condominium conversion. There are 33 cottages on approximately eleven acreas of land. This Board, the Planning Board and various other Town Boards and Agencies are extremely concern about an over burden of this parcel of land. The proposal would effectively double the size of the existing dwelling which would in the Boards opinion, cause undue puissance, hazzard and congestion and would harm the established character of the neigh- borhood. Consequently, the request for the addition shown on the plan is denied. However, the Board grants a Special Permit to allow the existing porch to be enclosed provided: 1. There is to be no extension of use beyond the seasonal use now permitted. 2. The porch is not to be heated. 3. The septic system is to be upgraded to meet all present Town and State requirements. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, Judith Sullivan, James MacNeil, Fritz Lindquist. Unanimous in their decision to grant as stated. No permit issued until 20 days from date of filing decision with the Town Clerk. Myer R. Singer Clerk i TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: Hearing Date: •6� JUF: -9 All :0 i Petitioner: Robert Longobardi Petition No. 2633 rr..... 58 Milliken Ave. 10WH CLt_?Fh Franklin, MA 02038 - DECISION; The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval and/or special permit to allow: a) the exterior alteration and change of a pre-existing non- conforming structure. Members of Board of Appeals present: Leslie Campbell, David Oman, Joyce Sears, DeWitt Davenport and Thomas 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in The following appeared in favor of the petition: Jerry L. Sousong, Attorney for the Petitioners. The following appeared in opposition: None REASON FOR DECISION: The Petitioner submitted a plan to the Board, which is on file with the Appeal that shows the site and the proposed addition. The cottage in question is located in the South Sea Village Condominium, so called, on South Sea Ave. in West Yarmouth. The entire cottage colony is non -conforming and was made into condominiums prior to the present provision of the by-law dealing with condominium conversion. There are 33 cottages on approximately eleven acres of land. To increase the size of the present building by over 50% would create a burden on the septic system due to the building's close proximity to 32 other buildings now existing on this lot. If an increase in size is allowed for this or other buildings in the area, there is a potential hazard to the marshland to'the east of the present site. With the present number of residence units on the lot, the lot appears at its maximum intensity and 9 to allow an addition which potentially may house a larger number of persons for a greater period of the year will be an overburdening of an already congested situation. Any over- burdening would create a detriment to the neighborhood of the present existing non -conforming use thus creating additional nuisance, hazard and congestion due to increased traffic and noise. On a Motion to Deny, the motion was carried by the requisite majority of four in favor and one abstention. Members of Board Voting: Leslie Campbell, David Oman, Joyce Sears and DeWitt Davenport. Therefore, the petition is denied for the above stated reasons. No permit issues until 20 days from the date of filing decision with the Town Clerk. Fritz Lindquist Clerk FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: PETITION NO: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION JUi 12 9 1992 May 28, 1992 \� 1 -92 QUA 29 A 8 :46 IUViNW:6.e,,:Z IREASUH": Richard Walker, Boston, MA tp- PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 184.South-Sea Avenue,.Unit 32, South Yarmouth, MA and shown on Assessor's"Map 13'as Parcel X1. PETITIONER REQUESTS: A special permit/variance from section 104.3.2 to construct a wood patio over an existing concrete patio with an enclosed wood rail; to protect children. And for any other relief that the Board deems meet and just. MET'1HERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING: Leslie Campbell, Fritz Lindquist, David Reid, Richard Neitz, Jeanne Bullock. 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. Mr. Richard Walker, the petitioner, presented the petition to the Board. The petitioner represents that the present single family residence in question has an existing concrete patio (8' x 12.8') at the front (Westerly) side of the structure. The house has undergone considerable repair and renovation (and restoration). Now the petitioner proposes to replace the patio with a wooden deck. Because of the elevation of the house, a raised deck is more desirable and appropriate. He proposes to construct such a deck, somewhat larger than the existing patio, to measure 9' out from the house and 15' across the front of the house. The new deck would therefore be approximately 31' from the roadway (South Sea Avenue), which is in compliance with the currently existing front yard set back requirements. However, this dwelling is one of several dwellings on one lot, being a converted cottage colony, now in condominium ownership. It is therefore a non- conforming use in that regard, and requires approval per section 104.3.2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Board is satisfied that the proposed alterations Tray be made without being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing, non -conforming use. Therefore a Motion was made Mr. Lindquist, seconded by Mr. Reid, to grant the special permit (5104.3.2) for a deck not to exceed 9' x 15' (as shown on the petitioner's sketch plan) and on the condition that the addition of the deck not includes a roof and not be enclosed as habitable space. The Board members voted ur..anirrously in favor of the Motion. The special ce=-nit is therefore •r T granted. No permit shall issue until the passing of 20 days from the filing of this decision with the Town Clerk. C`• �G�Ii�G� � ' David S. Reid, Clerk Board of Appeals TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: 8 19G5 PETITION NO: 3171 HEARING PATE: February 23, 1995 PETITIONER: Jean & Kevin Shea PO Box 1605 57 Popple Bottom Rd. Sandwich MA 02563 PROPERTY: :l84rSod­th',,Sda Ave., West Yarmouth MA. X1. L •55 MR -s As :46 iciN CLF_ ,; . i;cct,:.Li i Assessor's Map 13 Parcel MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING: Fritz Lindquist, Chairman, David S. Reid, John Richards, Jerome Sullivan, Richard Brenner It appearing that notice of the hearing has been given by sending notice to the petitioners and all of those owners of property deemed to be affected thereby, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and published in the Yarmouth Sun, the hearing was opened and held on the date stated above. The petitioners, Mr. & Mrs. Shea, appeared at the hearing to present their petition. They are the owners of a small seasonal cottage, shown as #28'on the plan of "South Sea Village" Condominiums, dated March 1981, a copy of which is filed with this petition. The property, located in the R-25 zone, comprises approximately 11.45 acres of total area, and is improved with 30 cottages, now in condominium ownership. The petitioner's cottage is a one -bedroom cottage, measuring approximately 221x 161. It is a seasonal building, constructed on piers. The petitioners' seek a Special Permit to expand the building by adding a bedroom, the addition adding an area of approximately 16'x 16'2". The Sheas represent that the Condominium Association has approved of their proposal, that the addition will similarly be constructed on piers (as shown on their architectural plans filed with the Board), will remain seasonal in use (the water service also being shut off to the condominiums in the Winter). They have contracted with A. B. Canco for the installation of a new Title V Sep- tic System to serve the residence. They represent that their building is located 511, 581, 721, and 65' from the nearest building in each direction. No one appeared or wrote to the Board to oppose this petition. Concerns were expressed by some Board Members for the precedent set by such an expansion involving an additional bedroom, and in general for the expansion t of such residences within former cottage colonies. However, this particular residence appears to be presently non -conforming principally due to the den- sity of development on the lot and its location on one lot with the multiple other residences. The "use" itself is allowed and the structure appears to comply with the current building separation requirements. As a single fam- ily residence seeking expansion per by-law Section 104.3.2., the Board finds that the expansion will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than is the existing use and structure. Accordingly, a Motion was made by Mr. Brenner, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to grant the Special Permit, per Section 104.3.2, to allow the addition requested (and as shown on the submitted plans). All members voted in favor of the Motion. The Special Permit is therefore granted. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to ss17 c40A and must be filed within 20 days after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. David S. Reid, Clerk Board of Appeals TOWN' OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF 1146 ROUTE `28 SOUTH YARJ(OUTH WSSACHUSETTS 026E' 44451 _ �Pt'E1F Telephone (508) 398-2231. Ext. 285 — Fax (508) 398-2365;� C Ir t FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION #3361 .lAN 2 7 >9�I January 16, 1997 �. JAN % 7 i997 D BOARD OF APPEALS PETITIONER: Kirk & Brenda Martin w PROPERTY: Unit 8, 184 South Sea Avenue; West Yarmouth; MA Map:,13 Parcels X1-8 Zoning Dist. ' R25 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, Andrew Ryan, James Robertson, Audrey Miller, Jerry Sullivan, and non -voting member Joseph Samosky. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed 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. The petitioner was represented at the hearing by Attorney Myer Singer of Dennis. The property in question is identified as Unit/Cottage #8, 184 South Sea Avenue, West Yarmouth, as shown on a plan by Sweetser Engineering, dated October 25, 1996, filed with the Board by the petitioner. The cottage is a single family residential structure, being one of 32 such residences on the 11.45 acre parcel. The units exist under a condominium established prior to the enactment of the current conversion by-law. The petitioner purposes to enlarge their dwelling by the addition of an unheated sun -room to the Northerly side (rear) of the dwelling, and of a deck attached to the addition. The addition will be set back from the adjoining lot line and other structures, well more than the by-law would otherwise require. The petitioner represents that the dwelling is used principally in the fair-weather months, and that the addition will not result in any change of use. While no specific "season" of use was identified, the petitioner agrees that no change of use is sought in this petition. The addition will be built without foundation (on so-called sona-tubes), will have three walls principally made of glass (door & windows). It will be unheated, either by fixed or portable heating facilities. No additional bedrooms or occupancy will result from this addition, per se. I ''in:V .� �•'C: Cra Pao9r Page 2 Decision #3361 Kirc F. & Brenda Martin The Board finds that the addition itself would comply with current set -back requirements, and would not render the dwelling or site substantially more non -conforming. Further, the overall density of the site will remain consistent with the average density of the adjoining neighborhoods. The Board also finds that the variance sought in the petition is unnecessary, and the petitioner, on this basis, was willing to withdraw that portion of the petition. A motion was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Ryan, to Grant the Special Permit, per § 104.3.2, as requested and or shown on the site plan, on the condition that the petitioner comply with the aforesaid representations, especially that the enclosed addition remain an unheated sunroom, and that the new deck remain an open/unenclosed deck. The members voted unanimously in favor of this motion. The Special Permit is therefore granted. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to c40A §17 and must be filed within 20 days after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. David S. Reid Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: February 26, 2002 PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: #3731 2oa;� February, 14,2001 YARMOUTH TOWN (CLERK 2102 FEB 26 PH 12: 2 RECEIVED PETITIONER: George & Carol Popik,,:,,, PROPERTY: 184 South Sea Avenue, West Yarmouth Map: 17 Parcel: 136C29, (131X1) Zoning District: R25 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, John Richards, James Robertson, Joseph Sarnosky, Diane Moudouris, 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. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit in order to expand an existing single family seasonal cottage, pursuant to § 104.3.2(3). The property is located in an R25 zone. The site consists of a former cottage colony, now in condominium ownership. Approximately 33 units are present on the single lot, as shown on the land court plan submitted by the petitioner. The existing cottage consist of a small, one story structure, with three (3) rooms and a deck. The proposal would fill in an "L", and square off the building adding another room The approximate setbacks from adjoining structures are shown on the plan (measured by the applicant). The applicant's representative (contractor) is currently under a stop -work order, as the addition was fully framed before this application was filed (and before a building permit was secured). The interior layout will be such that this new room can not be effectively separated from the rest of the house. It is therefore an expansion of the living area, indistinguishable from the rest of the house. As such, it constitutes a significant enlargement of the house. The Board had concerns about this enlargement, especially in the context of the rest of the site. These historically seasonal rental cottages are now in separate ownership. If they continue to be progressively enlarged and converted to longer seasons and year round homes, the effective use of this lot will be changed significantly and detrimentally. This lot is not large enough to support some 33 single family homes. This particular addition is not an insubstantial addition, nor is it an addition of limited utility, such as a deck or open porch. It is, proportionately, a substantial increase in the habitable space of the dwelling, and an intensification of the non -conforming use (multiple dwelling on a single residential lot). -1- After discussion and deliberations, a motion was made by Mr. Samosky to deny the Special Permit as requested, Mr. St. George seconded the motion which passed unanimously in favor. The Special Permit was therefore denied. 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. n David S. Reid, Clerk -2- r• TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: December 13, 2002 PETITION NO. #3797 HEARING DATE: December 12, 2002 1C•• 13 El 4: 12 PETITIONER: George & Carol Popik PROPERTY: 184 South Sea Avenue,,Unit29,W6t Yarmouth i Assessors Map: 17, Lot: 136 (13/Xl) Zoning District: R25 em MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, John Richards, Joseph Sarnosky, Richard Neitz, Sean Igoe, Jim Robertson, Alternate. 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. The petitioner proposes to construct a three -season screened porch addition and a deck, to be attached to an existing single story single-family dwellings. The property is located in the R25 zone. The dwelling is one of 33 such cottages/dwelling on an eleven -acre parcel. The cottages are in condominium ownership, and have been since prior to the adoption of the bylaw's condominium conversion special permit requirement. The proposed addition would include a covered porch area, measuring approximately I V x 15 , plus a 6' x 12' open deck (near grade level) deck. The porch would be unheated. The petitioner represents that the existing exterior door, window and walls for the house would remain. The porch would be an unheated, unfinished room, with screens in the windows and that it dwelling would only be used in the fair weather months. The property and a similar proposal were before the Board earlier this year. On February 14, 2002, in case #3731, the Board denied a request for an addition of the same dimensions and location. In June of this year the Planning Board declined to approve an early reapplication for the same relief (c.40A § 16). The petitioner now contends that the present proposal is not within the prohibition of §16 (repetitive petition), but is a significantly different proposal and therefore allowed to proceed. In particular, the earlier proposal would have opened up the living room and interior habitable space to this additional room. In the earlier decision, the Board essentially found that, notwithstanding it being described as a three -season porch, it would have been an integral part of the interior habitable space and therefore a significant expansion of the dwelling. Currently, the proposal will retain the exterior door, walls and window of the present house, and keep this porch a true seasonal porch. It will not be suitable for guest living, for example. 1 r A motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Neitz, to first find that the present proposal was substantially different from the earlier proposal as to qualify as a new petition. Mr. Sarnosky, Mr. Richards, Mr. Neitz and Mr. Igoe voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Reid voted against the motion. The motion therefore passed and the Board proceeded to the merits of the requested relief. A second motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Richards, to grant the Special Permit, as requested, on the condition that: (1) It remain a seasonal porch, and have no more then screens in the windows and openings (no glass or solid covering -except perhaps sheets of plastic in the winter for protection of the interior from the weather), (2) it remain unheated, (3) the deck be allowed as requested, 6' out and 12' across the front of the porch addition.) Mr. Richards, Mr. Igoe and Mr. Neitz voted in favor of the motion, and Mr. Reid and Mr. Samosky voted against the motion. The motion therefore failed to pass by the necessary majority. After some discussion, a third motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Richards, to grant the Special Permit on the condition; (1) that it remain a seasonal porch, (2) that the existing exterior door and windows of the cottage remain intact, and (3) that it be unheated, and on the further condition (4) that the westerly and northerly walls of the porch addition (i.e. the front and right sides) be opened up (removing the solid walls) and be finished with a knee wall of not more then 3' in height (above the finished floor), and the rest of the sides (from the top of the knee wall to the ceiling) be enclosed only with screening (and necessary framing for support). The motion would also allow the 6' x 12' open deck, as proposed. The Board members felt that this additional limitation would assure that it would in fact be and remain a seasonal porch, and not become effective living space, expanding the non -conforming dwelling beyond the current intentions of the applicant. On this motion, the members voted unanimously in favor. The Special Permit was therefore granted. 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) Unless otherwise provided herein, a Variance shall lapse if the rights authorized herein are not excised within 12 months. (See MGL c40A §10) David S. Reid, Clerk 2 • Doc:94894ay 11-le—zwwO 7:ct BARNSTRPLE LAND COURT REGISTRY TOWN OF YARMOUTH ;a OF APPEALS o,—-�<, �• BOARD � ,_i'•. :. ,,-,r•. �• �.,,� DECISION • 1• 55 FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: August 25, 2003 flC�: PETITION NO. • #3845 HEARING DATE: August 14, 2003 PETITIONER: Paul & Jean King PROPERTY: 184 South Sea Avenue, West Yarmouth Assessors Map: 17, Lot: 136C2, Zoning District: R25 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, John Richards, Joseph Sarnosky, Sean Igoe, Forrest White. • 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. The petitioner requests a Special Permit, in order to renovate and add on to an existing non- conforming cottage. The cottage is located on one parcel of land with approximately 34 other Cr. cottages, held in condominium ownership. The property is in the R25 zone. The house is non- conforming principally because there are multiple dwellings on this one lot. The petitioner proposes to replace the existing kitchen and bathroom sections of the house, E-- enlarging each. He will also enlarge the front porch/deck, and attach a small shed. The main body of the house would remain intact, containing 2 bedrooms and a living area. The front porch/deck would remain close to grade, open (no roof or side walls) but expanded to 8' x 15.6'. The petitioner filed architectural and floor plan sketches, as well a site plan, for the property. T'ne Board has been reluctant to allow additional • enclosed habitable (livable) space to these cottages. This cottage, as most in the village, is seasonal, un-insulated and unheated. Because the village is non -conforming, and does not have interior roads, etc., the Board has tried to retain the seasonal cottage design and use of the cottages. For the same reasons, the Planning Board recommended against the allowance of a 33% expansion. The petitioner agreed, at the suggestions of the Board, to reduce the size of the remodeled kitchen to essentially the same size as the present kitchen (8' out from the house), but to have the end walls line up evenly with the front and back walls of the main house structure. The bathroom and hallway addition would be rebuilt on the same footprint. The deck would be enlarged as proposed. The outdoor shed would be attached to the rear of the house, as proposed. i .1 Thereby the interior space and foundation of the house would remain essentially unchanged. It would remain an un-insulated, unheated seasonal cottage. As thus revised, a motion was made to grant the Special Permit to allow the rebuilding of the bathroom/entranceway, and kitchen, alterations, to allow the expansion of the front open (near grade) deck to 8' x 15.6', and to allow the construction of the attached outdoor shed. The petitioner shall file with the Board revised building plans, showing the reduced size building/alteration, conforming to this decision, prior to the issuance of a building permit. No further hearing will be required, provided a majority of the board members review and approve of the revised plans. The members voted unanimously in favor for 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) Unless otherwise provided herein, a Variance shall lapse if the rights uthorized herein are not excised within 12 months. (See MGL c40A §10) �i David S. Reid, Clerk 2 TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: June 10, 2005 PETITION NO. #3963 HEARING DATE: June 9, 2005 PETITIONER: William R. Yorns PROPERTY: 184 South Sea Avenue, Unit 23, West Yarmouth Assessors Map/Lot:17.136C23, Zoning District: R25 YARMOUTH TOWN CLERK 2Q15 JUN 10 PM T. 29 RECEIVE L7:5� MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, Joseph Sarnosky, Steven DeYoung, Thomas Roche, Forrest Whitey 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. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit under ¢ 104.3.2, in order to expand and enclose an existing porch, to create a larger three-scason room. The property is located in an R25 zone. The property is a cottage colony, in condominium ownership, reportedly containing 11 acres of land and 33 cottages of varying sizes and designs. The proposed renovations would expand the existing open dek/potch, by approximately 60 square feet, raise the roof _ line slightly, and enclose its three walls with solid walls below and storm window assemblies above. It would be unheated and used as a larger funny room for the cottage owner's occupants. The petitioner represents that the cottage is only used between May and October, as it is unheated and the plumbing is exposed to the outside walls of the structure. The petitioner reports that there is no restriction on the seasonal use contained within the condominium documents, so that it could be converted to year-round use, if he chose to do so. The Board noted that it has, in the past, bow very reluctant to add habitable interior space to these cottages, and has generally limited expansion to decks and porches. This addition is more extensive then the Board is inclined to approve. The site is non -conforming, containing multiple dwellings on a single site, having been converted from a former seasonal cottage colony. The site, as a whole, has never been before the Board, and the board has be= reluctant to allow expansions of individual cottages on a case by case basis. A motion was made by Mr. DeYoung to deny the petition as proposed. In fight of the Board members conoenos, the petitioner requested leave to withdraw the petitioner, so that they could consider a lesser design, more reflective of these concerns. Mr. DeYoung withdrew his motion. A further motion was made by Mr. DeYoung, seconded by Mr. Rocy�ow the petitioner's request to withdraw without prejudice. The members voted unanimously von. David S. Reid, Clerk Doc=1s021s744 12-19-200� 11=i`f BARNSTABLE LAND COURT REGISTRI TOWN OF YAKMUU'1'H Y�C' 'D_U I H BOARD OF APPEALS -- DECISION M5 : _? 20 F'+1 2: 04 FILED WITH CLERK: TOWN September 20, 2005 ~ i- 1'v �Ei�_�"ED PETITION NO. #3976 HEARINGDATE: .September 8, 2005 PETITIONER William R. & Eileen Yorns PROPERTY: 184 South Sea Avenue, Unit #23, West Yarmouth. t MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, John Richards, Joseph Sarnosky, Sean Igoe, and Stephen DeYoung. i N It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and In 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 (�l stated above. 2 The petitioner seeks a Special Permit to enclose an existing open porch on a single-family seasonal cottage. The cottage is one of 33 buildings located on a single lot in the R25 zone. The cottages were llUll--- converted from a rental cottage colony to a condonunium development. The petitioner's cottage, #23, is non -conforming because of the multiple dwellings on this single lot. The petitioner therefore seeks N a Special Permit under bylaw § 104.3.2 in order to make the proposed renovation. r F The petitioner, at the hearing, filed a revised set of plans (Manchester Cottage #23, 184 South Sea 2 - Avenue, West Yarmouth, Sheet 1 of 1, dated 7/2/05 but marked as received by the Board on 9/8/05). D These plans are the ones considered by the Board. The proposal will raise the ridge of the existing porch by 6", to a height of I 71/2". This will allow it to match the bottom edge of the existing roof line. The new porch will otherwise occupy the same footprint as the existing porch. However, it will have a 3' high kneewall, above the floor of the porch. The petitioner proposes to install a traditional 6' glass slider in the center of the porch, and screen panels on the front and sides of the porch. The porch would be unheated, and the existing exterior wall and windows of the house would remain intact. The Board finds that this is one of numerous cottages on this site, each of which is individually owned. Several of the cottages have been before the Board, seeking modest additions. The entire site (elevation) is low, and several areas have raised septic systems already. The exact amount of available upland on the site is undetermined, since no formal site plan has been prepared or presented to the board. However, the Board, in the past, has been cautious with this site's development, so as not to have it become a year round residential community, for which it is not well suited. Most additions have been limited to structures such as porches and decks, so as not to increase habitable space. 1 The Board finds that the requested addition/alteration may be made, without being substantially more detrimental, provided it is carefully limited to, and remains, a seasonal screen porch. Therefore, a motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by W. Richards, to grant the Special Permit, for the porch addition shown on the 9/8/05 (revised) plans, on the following conditions: 1) The glass slider be eliminated and replaced with only a traditional screen door of approximately 3' in width, 2) The porch may have the 3' kneewall on three sides, but the only thing that may be installed above the 3' kneewall is screening (except for the comer support members holding up the roof). There are to be no areas of solid wall or cedar shingled walls above the 3' level, nor may any areas incorporate other enclosures such as storm or combination window units, 3) A set of revised plans, conforming to this decision, shall be filed with and approved of by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Board members voted unanimously in favor of the motion, the Special Permit is therefore granted 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 noticeldecision 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) David S. Reid, Clerk iq Doc:1r217s006 03-21-2013 11:10 BARNSTABLE LAND COURT REGISTRY FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION February 27, 2013 4432 February 14,2013 Patricia A. Bassett and Doreen Andrade YARHOUTH TOWN CLERK '13FE827AM11:42 REC PROPERTY: 184 South Sea Avenue, Unit 33, West Yarmouth, MA Map 17, Parcel 136C33 Zoning District: R-25 - Document 1197714 Certificate of Title C94-33.' MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Steven DeYoung, Sean Igoe, Joseph Sarnosky, Richard Neitz and Bryant Palmer 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 Register, the hearing opened and held on the date stated above. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Zoning Bylaw §104.3.2, in order to raze and replace a legally pre-existing non -conforming structure on a pre-existing non -conforming lot. The existing one-story cottage is one'of 34 buildings located.on a single lot, containing approximately 11.5 acres, and is located in the R25 Zoning District, and known collectively as the South Sea Village Condominium. The former cottage colony was converted to a condominium form of ownership in 1981. The Petitioner's cottage, #33, is non -conforming because of the multiple dwellings on this single lot. The Petitioner's cottage is the smallest of the 34 units, containing 185 square feet of living space, with cooking facilities, and a half bath, but serviced only by an outdoor shower. There is also an uncovered deck measuring 282 square feet. This unit is located 59 feet from the, nearest unit, 25 feet from the storage garage, and 80 feet from the southerly boundary of the property. It is also approximately 180 feet from -South Sea Avenue. The total lot coverage for this unit, plus the decks, is 467 square feet. The Petitioner proposes to remove the cottage and to replace it, on the same footprint, with a building'which is 1 % stories, measuring 20' x 24' (480 square feet), 1.7'/s feet at the peak. The bathroom will now contain the shower, and the outdoor shower will not be needed. The first level will contain a separate bedroom; bath, and kitchen/living area.. There will also be a loft over one half of the building.. The Petitioners presented various photos of the site and these were marked as Exhibit 1 (9- T'x5") and Exhibit 2 (2- 5" x 9"). There is a proposed deck of 124 square feet, and a porch of 48 square feet. The total lot coverage, including the deck and patio, will be 652 square feet, an increase of 185 square feet over the existing coverage. The overall coverage of.existing structures on the entire 11.5 acre site is approximately 4.5%. Both Petitioners appeared and were well represented by their attorney, Paul Tardif, who presented a well prepared overview of existing and proposed conditions. The Petitioners explained that the proposal would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than is the existing structure, especially in light of other former cottage colonies in town, and by comparison, the subdivision located across the street from this site, bounded by Lewis Bay Road, and encompassing Lorena Road and Andrina Road. The diminutive size of this unit, being the smallest of all of the South Sea Village Condominium units, and its. substandard condition for human habitation, were also proffered as.reasons for granting the Special Permit and which was generally, considered by Board members as causing this Petition to be unique with regard to other similar requests. w However, the Board's discussion centered mostly on the considerable collection of prior " Decisions issued for cottages on this site, and the potential precedent that granting this relief would provide to subsequent applicants. Members discussed the deteriorating housing stock in the Town of Yarmouth, the Town's recent positions regarding setting minimum unit sizes for both affordable and converted motel units as favoring the increased unit size sought by this Petitioner. In addition, the Petitioner. pointed out that this unit is not only very small, but also not located in close proximity to other structures nearby, and positioned more in the center portion of the lot, away from abutting properties, wetlands and public ways. It was the Board's position that the prior Decisions were not of any precedential value as the decisions wavered with the collective thinking of prior Boards. It was also determined that this particular unit, based on the reasons recited above, warranted relief in this particular case and that a general "rule of thumb" would not be created for other units. Finally, and based on the fact that many of the units are equipped for year round occupation, and the lack of prohibition to limit the use of these units for seasonal periods, warranted that these petitioners be provided the same opportunity to enjoy a minimum standard of comfort with the awarding of this Special Permit. One current owner (John Handel) of a larger unit in the South Sea Village Condominium (Unit 9) appeared in person in support of the application for many of the reasons discussed above. Three current unit owners appeared by letter in opposition to the Petition, despite each having received the benefit of additions or expansions.in the past. I . The Board was satisfied and agreed unanimously that the new structure would be an improvement and consistent with the developing neighborhood; that a grant of a Special Permit would create no nuisance, hazard, congestion or other harm, substantial or otherwise, and that the new structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than is the existing non -conforming structure. Moreover, due to its present size, the Board generally felt that the health and well being of the Petitioners would be improved with the grant of the relief sought. Accordingly, a Motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Neitz, to grant the Special Permit, as requested, without condition. Mr. Igoe, Mr. Neitz, Mr. Palmer and Mr. DeYoung voted in favor, with.Mr. Samosky voting opposed. The Motion passed by a 4-1 vote. 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, Mrman