HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 - Audrey Pitts Planning Board Objection Aug 15 2023 1
Planning Board
Town of Yarmouth
August 15, 2023
RE: ROAD application 2023-1
for 1272, 1276, and 1282 Route 28, S. Yarmouth MA
My name is Audrey Pitts, an owner-occupant, homesteader,
registered voter in the Town of Yarmouth, and an abuttor of the
proposed project under discussion.
I have stated at every meeting regarding the various versions of
this proposal, and I reiterate, none by their very nature qualify for
consideration as a ROAD project.
The Town of Yarmouth wished to encourage the construction of
buildings which comported architecturally with a traditional seaside
village, and which would induce passers-by to stop, get out of their
cars, and explore the area, to which end pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly designs were also encouraged. The Town therefore
offered land-owners and developers willing to adhere to this vision
certain relaxations and streamlining of the standard zoning
regulations, i.e the ROAD process.
2
A generic gas station-convenience store-drive thru embodies
pretty much the opposite of this vision.
The contention that a ROAD application does not have to fulfill all
the requirements if its benefits to the Town are great enough has
focused on the alleged monetary benefits, but these appear to be
exaggerated or illusory, and in any case not seriously analyzed.
For example, both the gas station and the convenience store
replicate two-three other gas stations and convenience stores
already existing in the same, roughly one mile stretch of road.
How many can this small area support? Will the proposal’s
businesses simply cut into the patronage of existing concerns,
rather than add new clients? This would be tantamount to a wash,
moving the same expenditures and the revenue the Town can
expect from them from one side of the street to the other.
Similarly, the claim that these businesses will add employees, in a
situation where virtually every other business in Town has trouble
recruiting anyone to work there, needs to be taken with a large
grain of salt. Will they perhaps be purloined from other
establishments in Town, again simply moving pieces around on
the board without adding anything.
3
An additional factor definitively disqualifying this particular
proposal from consideration as a ROAD project is stipulated in the
Town of Yarmouth’s Zoning Bylaws, where one of the sections on
ROAD (411.3.3 fn. 9) states that a Special Permit may be issued:
“provided such use is not hazardous by reason of potential fire,
explosion, radiation, nor injurious or detrimental to the
neighborhood by reason of dust, odor, fumes, vibration, or other
noxious objectionable features, nor harmful to surface or ground
water.”
The inherently hazardous nature of gas stations, in particular
relating to certain carcinogenic substances, has been confirmed
by various scientific studies, which fact has been brought up at all
previous meetings, with links to some such studies provided, so I
will not go into those details here again. I just urge the Planning
Board members to take these potential hazards seriously,
especially in view of the proximity of the proposed project to
residences.
This is even more critical given that the owners of the existing gas
station on the site have been cited several times for gas spills,
repeatedly, as they have been remiss about performing the
necessary remediation/clean-up. Another dire condition on this
site, revolving around the current cottage residences, concerns
infestations of rats (!) inside one of the residences. Despite what
4
one can only conclude were rather lackadaisical attempts by the
Town’s Department of Public Health to get the owners to address
the issue, no action was taken for over five years (!), until another,
outside agency got involved on behalf of the cottage residents.
The owners have a demonstrated disregard for hazardous
conditions on their property, and a notable failure to address them
which continues for years.
Similar carelessness in regard to hazardous materials is evident in
the current proposal’s acoustic fence for the rear lot line. It is
designed as a vinyl fence with 2” rigid insulation attached and
painted white. This is the type of insulation which is used on
buildings and then covered up with something substantial, like
wood siding, so that it is never exposed to the elements, where it
will quickly enough disintegrate and the toxic materials used in its
composition dispersed throughout the surrounding environment.
The materials, btw, are polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and
polystyrene, the last of which is particulary hazardous, and known
to leach chemicals which advance into the water supply.
Other questionable items include trees too close to the septic
system, and septic tanks and leach fields located under traffic and
idling lanes for gas, the store, and the drive-thru, as well as access
to the apartment parking area. Though placing septic systems
under tarmac may be reasonable in some circumstances, the
5
heavy traffic one might expect from three businesses and one
residence make such placement here rather dubious. Certainly, it
is likely due to trying to squeeze too much into the available space,
an issue we’ve seen with all previous iterations of the proposal.
The car-centric nature of this project, and in particular of the drive-
thru, will cause almost constant traffic, from very early in the
morning well into the night. The current situation, where our
neighborhood is buffered from the gas station by the cottages, will
be transformed into one where cars will be moving and idling close
to the rear lot line, in fact, closer than the standard required
distance. This will introduce noxious fumes, including diesel, as
well as noise levels that we simply have not experienced here
before. And due to the proposed hours of operation, and the need
to service the various businesses before, during and after normal
operations, we will have no respite from these new obnoxious
conditions.
I understand that the current owner wishes to improve the property
and increase its profitability, and that some members of the Town
government consider this site to currently be an eyesore and
would like to see something --- anything! really --- replace it. But
these desires are not sufficient to make this conglomeration of car-
centric businesses a ROAD project. Nothing prevents the owner
from taking advantage of the normal zoning process to change his
lot.
6
I urge the Board to disqualify this application as a ROAD project.
Sincerely,
Audrey Pitts, PhD