HomeMy WebLinkAbout4977 64 Kings Circuit Decision Recorded 11.29.22Bk 35510 Pg71 #58529
11-29-2022 * @ 02 : 26p
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK:
PETITION NO:
HEARING DATE:
PETITIONER:
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
November 4, 2022
October 27, 2022
Kings Way Trust
Peter Marinelli, Chairman, Board of Trustees
PROPERTY: 64 Kings Circuit, Yarmouth Port, MA
Map 142, Parcel 13-17, Zoning District: R-40
Title: Book 5870, Page 222
Land Court Document 433670 and 1,456,073
Land Court Plan 34279 Q
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Sean Igoe, Acting Chairman (via Zoom), Dick
Martin, Jay Fraprie, John Mantoni and Tim Kelley.
Notice of the hearing was given by sending notice thereof to the Petitioner and all those owners
of property as required by law, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and publishing
in The Cape Cod Times. The hearing opened and was held on the date stated above.
The petitioner seeks to modify Decision 4282, which granted a Special Permit to the petitioner to
permit public play at the private golf course, use N6, but imposed a limitation that not more than
8,000 rounds of golf could be played per year by the public. The petitioner seeks to remove the
9,000 rounds per year limitation, pursuant to Bylaw section 102.2.1, and for the Board to find
that such a modification of the pre-existing use would not be substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood, per bylaw section 104.3.2.
The petitioner was represented at thehearing by Attorney David S. Reid, with representatives of
the Board of Trustees present, and with the assistance of the property manager, Kevin Howard of
Barkan Management.
The petitioner presented a history of the site and its development, much of which background is
also set forth in the Decision #4282 which is the subject of this petition (which background is
incorporated by references) . The existing use is an Open Space Village Development, originally
permitted by Special Permit # 1321 in 1975. There are 456 condominium units in the Kings Way
development, and an additional 19 units in the section known as Admiralty Heights, plus 191
tAJRUE C T:
C��ATTEST:
CMMC / CAgC !TOWN CLERK
unit '! A wnwet
Bk 35510 Pg72 #5852C
senior housing units in the Heatherwood Senior Living Facility, all on this approximately 200-
acre site. The property also contains its own post office, restaurant, septic treatment plant, and
recreational facilities including the l 8-hole executive golf course. Pursuant to the original 1975
Special Permit and Variance, public play at the golf course was permitted during the
development phases of the site. This use Variance expired in 2002. In 2009, the Trust applied for
and was granted a Special Permit (#4282) to allow public play on the golf course, then use N6,
provided the volume of public play not exceed 8,000 rounds of golf per year.
The petitioner seeks to remove the public play limit from Decision 4282, and permit unlimited
public play on the private golf course. The reason for the request is the economic situation and
viability of the golf operation. Due to changes in the demographics of the residents and owners
within the Kings Way, and the lack of play on the course by the resident owners and occupants,
the public play on the course has proven to be insufficient to cover the cost of maintaining and
operating the course. As a result, the residents of Kings way have been required to subsidize the
golf operations from condominium dues, in the range of $360,000 per year.
In addition, due to the economic situation, significant infrastructure and maintenance costs have
been deferred but must eventually be addressed. The economic unviability of the golf operation
threatens its continuation and imposes an increasing burden on the non -golfing owners of units in
the development. In response, the Trustees have investigated alternate management
opportunities, all of whom have indicated that the cap on public play at the course would be a
significant impediment to their ability to effectively operate the course. As a result, the
petitioners seek to remove that cap on public play. If removed, the course would remain a private
golf course, for the owners, residents and members of Kings Way, but would be allowed to admit
the general public to play the course on a fee -based system, in order to supplement the private
play and help the course remain viable.
The petitioner represented that the parking at the course has always been adequate for the golf
and adjoining restaurant operations. No changes to the parking or site are proposed. The
petitioner presented evidence that the tragic patterns on the adjoining Route 6A, the only
entrance for the public to the course, do not present any hazard or congestion, and is not
expected to be adversely impacted by the increased traffic that will be generated by this request.
There is no driving range or other accessory amenities at the course, so players are expected to
arrive for their assigned tee times, spaced evenly throughout the day.
Several letters were received by the Board from Kings Way residents, concerned for the traffic
and parking situation with the greater public play as requested. Two individual residents also
spoke in opposition to the petition. Several letters, and a petition in support of the request signed
by over 400 residents of Kings Way, were also received by the Board.
Members of the Board addressed their concerns for the petitioner's request, including concerns
that traffic or parking could prove to be problematic, depending on the level of success of the
proposed operation, and concern for the potential impact of greater public presence on the golf
course, which is designated as open space under the development's Special Permit, and concern
for potential impact on the residents who reside in close proximity to the golf course itself.
UE C 'ITEgr
CMMC / CMC / TOWN -CLERK
Nnv 2 9 2622
Bk 35510 Pg73 *5852c,
However, the Board members also recognize the need for the course operation to remain
economically viable, so that it continues to be maintained and available for the residents. They
also recognized the changing circumstances that have detracted from the original business model
for the development, which necessitate some modifications in the operations. The Board does
credit the petitioner's observation that the course was operated with unlimited public play for the
first 14 years of its operation, and with almost unlimited public play for the most recent 13 years,
under Special Permit 4282, all without any reported nuisance, hazard or congestion. In order to
balance these needs, goals and concerns, members expressed the need to monitor the operation
going forward to assess and if necessary adjust the operational details and conditions as the
course evolves into this hybrid model.
After deliberations, a motion was made by Mr. Fraprie, seconded by Mr. Martin, to find,
pursuant to bylaw section 103.3.2, that the proposed modification of Decision 4282 may be
made, as requested, without resulting in any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion, and that it
would not result in any substantial harm to the established or future character of the
neighborhood or the Town, and, pursuant to bylaw section 104.3.2, that the proposed alteration
of the use under the original Special Permit, as previously modified, would not be substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood or Town, on the following conditions:
1) The petitioner shall notify the Board when it enters into an operating contract for the golf
course (it being anticipated that such a contract will provide for a three-year operating
agreement),
2) The Board will conduct a review of the golf operations annually, at the end of each of the
three years following the commencement of the said operating agreement, in order to
review the effects of the operation on the site and neighborhood, including 1) the volume
of public play, 2) the impact on the facilities — i.e. is the site able to handle the increased
play, traffic and parking, and 3) the impact of the operation on the Town and Town
resources. if the Board determines that during the review period that there has been a
significant negative impact on the facilities and/or neighborhood as a result of an increase
in play above 8,000 rounds of golf, it may make appropriate adjustments in the number of
rounds of golf to be played, but in no event less than the present 8,000 rounds presently
allowed.
Except as so modified, Special Permit #4282, and all previous Decisions pertaining to this site,
shall remain in force and effect.
The members voted unanimously in favor of the motion, 5-0. The petition was therefore granted.
A TRUE COPY ATTEST.
u4a
tMMO / CMC / 'TUWN- CLERK
Noa 2 9 20�
Bk 35510 Pg74 #5852c
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 ha'
CERTIFICATION OF TOWN CLERK
1, 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 #4977 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.
A;�ta. Fu� 0
Mary A. Maslowski
Nov 2 9 2022
A T UE COP TTEST. •
t:tt!s1iG / C;UsC; / 'rCWN GL F.R"K
NOV 29
Bk 35510 Pg75 #5852c
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
Petition #: 4977 Date: November 25, 2022
Certificate of Granting of a Special Per_
(General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11)
The Board of Appeals of the Town of Yarmouth Massachusetts hereby certifies that a Special Permit has been
granted to:
Kings Way Trust
Peter Marinelli, Chairman, Board of Trustees
64 Kings Circuit, Yarmouth Port, MA
Affecting the rights of the owner with respect to land or buildings at: 64 Kings Circuit, Yarmouth Port, MA
Map #: 142; Parcel #: 13-17; Zoning District: R-40; Title: Book 5870, Page 222; Land Court Document
433670 and 1,456,073; Land Court Plan 34279 Q and the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the
decision attached hereto is a true and correct copy of its decision granting said Special Permit, and copies of
said decision, and of all plans referred to in the decision, have been filed.
The Board of Appeals also calls to the attention of the owner or applicant that General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section l 1 (last paragraph) and Section 13, provides that no Special Permit, or any extension, modification or
renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the Town Clerk that
twenty (20) days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk and no appeal
has been filed or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the
Registry of Deeds for the county and district in which the land is located and indexed in the grantor index under
the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for such
recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
Sean Igoe, Vice Chair
A TRUE COPY ATTEST:
— & V0 0 a A 4 &X44
t;h9d"JIC Ct',lit;: /'i'G'VoN GLcF:fC
JOHN F . "OVEGTSTER2022
BARNSTABLE COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEED