Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 2706 Yankee Village MotelFILED WITH TOWN CLERK: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION It MAR 9 1990 HEARING DATE: February 8, 1990 PETITION NO: 2706 r) LIAR -9 A10 :55 "U.rh ]OWN CLLRX & TREASURUI PETITIONER: John R. Barker - d/bfa Yankee Village Motel PROPERTY located at 275 Main Street, Route 28, West Yarmouth, MA and shown on Assessor's Map #24 as parcel M3. Members of the Board present and voting: Donald F. Henderson, David B. Oman, Leslie Campbell, Joyce Sears, Fritz Lindquist. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit to allow the alteration of an existing motel known as the Yankee Village Motel shown on Assessor's map Sheet 24 as Parcel M3 and located in a general business district. The motel constitutes a preexisting nonconforming use as motel uses are no longer allowed in any zoning district within the Town of Yarmouth. Therefore, a Special Permit is required for change, extension or alteration. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof the 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 January 24, 1990, and January 31, 1990, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in support of the petition: Michael B. Stusse, attorney for the applicant; John R. Barker, owner and petitioner. Page 2 The following appeared in opposition to the petition: Bruce Murphy, Health Agent (by letter); the Planning Board (by letter). . .90 MAR -9 A10 :55 REASON FOR DECISION 1 OWN CLERK( & I RE-ASURF-H The Board heard evidence from the petitioner as to the age and past use of the property and examined the site plan and proposed alterations to units 1, 15, 25 and the manager's office and quarters as depicted on floor plans supplied by the petitioner. After hearing the evidence, the Board finds that the Yankee Village Motel constitutes a prior existing nonconforming use as that term is defined in §104.3 of the bylaw. The Board further finds that the petitioner may alter the structure only upon finding that the proposed alteration is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. By application of the criteria set forth in §104.3.2 of the bylaw the Board finds that the remodeling of the motel which includes new exterior and landscaping will enhance the neighborhood which consists of other motels, night clubs and business along Rout 28. As one of the Town's older motels, the remodeling will enhance the appearance of the area. The addition of minimal habitable space to three units and the manager's office will not result in an increase in the occupancy of the building but will make the rooms more comfortable and attractive to motel guests and allow for the construction of a handicapped unit. The Board concludes, therefore, that a Special Permit can be granted as there is no detriment to the neighborhood or Town. Page 3 On motion duly made by Leslie Campbell and seconded by Fritz Lindquist, nr S_r it was voted, by four members, to grant the Special Permit upon the following conditions: 90 MAR --9 Al ;bl::! . "AD1,101M 1. that petitioner obtain a favorable review and approval from the IOWN CLERK &AREAS Conservation Commission for all of the proposed work.. 2. That the allowed occupancy of the motel not be expanded. 3. Drainage is to be designed and constructed so as to contain all water run-off on site. 4. Landscaping as shown on petitioners plans, submitted and revised 5/5/86, must be installed before occupancy certificates are issued. Failure to comply with these conditions shall result in revocation of the special permit. Members voting in favor of the motion to grant: Donald Henderson, Joyce Sears, Leslie Campbell, Fritz Linduist. Member David B. Oman, voting in opposition to the motion. Therefore, the petition for special permit is granted by the requisite four votes. No permit to issue until twenty days from the date of filing the decision with the Town Clerk. Fritz Lindquist clerk FILL INDEX SHEET Document Folder # 2706 Identifying Name John R. gavkwr jr Type of Case: Administrative Appeal, Variance, Special Permit Name and address of applicant, appellant, petitioner: John R. Barker Jr. 275 Main Street, West Yarmouth, Ma. 02673 Location of property: Applicant, appellant, petitioner is owner, tenant, licensee, prospective purchaser. Name and address of owner: Same Nature of Appeal, Variance, Special Permit: An addition to apre-existing non- conforming structure. Specific relief requested: Applicable section of zoning ordinance or bylaw: Date of denial by Building Official. Zoning Administrator or Zoning officer: Date of application for hearing: Notice of hearing: Published in Yarmouth Sun Posted in January 11, 1990 on on Wed. 1-24-90 and 1-31-90 and Mailed on . January 26. 1990 to the following (list attached). Applicant x Abutters to abutters within 300' X Abutters X Planning Board X Owners directly opposite Planning Board or abutting city and towns X Public Hearing: Date(s): -I rl f Time(s): _ r 41 Members present: 1. u-4-e4A_ 2. 3. 4. _1.4 5. Decision: Date A&5 6 Favorable _ ✓ Unfav rable Findings: Conditions, safeguards, limitations: Date decision filed City /Town ClerJc'Planning Board Date decision sent to applicant an parties in interest Date of certification by City/7own Clerk ��,��/2 _.11Onr� Massachusetts Federation of Planning and Appeals Boards 1960 )Revised 1969 1973. 1977. 1988) 7.2 TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS OWNERS: Name: p %�/9,���/1 Appeals" - Address: / S Hearing Date: s- q r Paid.- nn PETITIONER: Name: ,4 Address: Telephone # 77e • i�f,5F e.jp�A__ Building Inspector This application is for the property and/or structure located at: Assessor's Map# 2y _Parcel# i'93 I/We, hereby request the action checked below: 1. Appeal from decision of the Building Inspector to grant permit. and etition your Board for a public hearing on this action. Application for Special Permit under Sections) la5Z, 3. Z of the Yarmouth Zoning By-law and/or for a use authorized in the "Use Regulation Schedule" Section(s) Ar 3. Petition for Variance from the terms of the Yarmouth Zoning By-law to allow: In order to grant petition, a variance of Section(s) of the By-law is necessary. % list of abutters within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property, as Shown on the most recent Assessor's Maps is attached. .'opies of the --Mules and Regulations of the Board and a general .nfornation� et aregavailable from the Board's Secretary. j r J; ,.�-,� •mac Si nature TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APPEAL #2706 DATE: February 8, 1990 PETITIONER: John R. Barker d/b/a Yankee Village Motel The chairman called the meeting to order and read the petition. All the abutters were notified and the necessary correspondence was made in The Yarmouth Sun. Members present: Donald Henderson, David B. Oman, Leslie Campbell, Fritz Lindquist, Joyce Sears. Property located at 275 Main Street (Route 28), MA (The Yankee Village Piotel) and shown on Assessor's Map#24 as parcel M3. The motel was originally built by Paul White of South Yarmouth in the 1950s and has operated continuously as a motel since that time. Therefore, the property is and constitutes a preexisting nonconforming use as set forth in Section 104.3 of the Yarmouth Zoning Bylaw. In 1987 the petitioner installed a new septic system on the property at the request of the Board of Health. Because five variances were required from the Yarmouth Health amendments to Title V and from Title V, the Board of Health placed a seasonal restriction on the owner's use of the property. The petitioner is now in the process of remodeling and restoring the motel and desires to make three minor modifications involving changes in three units and the manager's office. Because motels are not a permitted use in any zoning district in the Town of Yarmouth, a Special Permit is required. II. THE BOARD OF APPEALS MAY GRANT A SPECIAL PERMIT In accordance with Section 202.5 A7 of the bylaw, motels are not an allowed use. As the Yankee Village Motel is , . a preexisting nonconforming use as defined in Section 104.3 of the bylaw. In order to grant the desired relief, the Board exercising its authority under Section 104.3.2 of the bylaw must find that the: "extension, alteration or change will not. be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming use." The above -stated standard must be applied to the following First, the existing deck in front of Units 1 and 15 facts Will be enclosed and the square feet of space. The units Will each gain approxima y ,Swill be remodeled as a handicapped accessible unit and will accommodate two double beds for coThistisf an incaeasepin individual and his or her companion. not room space of approximatelYd of the31 cent roomodoes which prov dewhile more increasing the occupancy a ' comfortable room for guests. The petitioner also desires to enclose the deck space in front of Unit 25. In the past guests have used the deck asoolplace from which to dive or a more into he outdoor attra attractive nmoPel unit, obviate this problem and create the petitioner proposes to enclose the deck in front of the unit which will provide 105 additional eet square feet e t5 to the unit. The increase from 255.5 square ftsqu ar feet of living space is an increase of less than 30 percent. Finally, the petitioner seeks to remodel the office and er the main manager's quarters by removing the flat roof and enclosing office and creating an open cathedral ceiling approximately 58 square feet of additional space to the reception area and main office. This addition is intended to provide a more attractive and cotable recef the m tn area for mfor quests and will not increase the occupancy After withdrawing his initial request for a Special Permit, Mr. Barker appeared before the YarmouthSit Si rev Pew n RRevies Committee on January 25, 1990. A copy Of is attached hereto as Exhibit A. With respect to the comments of the Health Agent, the petitioner stresses that no Iease loadyon occupancy septicssystem� and there will be no anal were obtained in order to replace an Additionally variances old cesspool and leaching system which were installed prior to the adoption of Title V. The Health Agent's comments do not address the criteria of the zoning bylaw. The petitioner, if successful with this application, will proceed to address the matters raised by the Conservation Agent. Although the Site Plan Review them etitioner proposescomplete to add site upgrade is not required, P new landscaping along Route 2set nof thethe bbylaw Additionally, the alarm and detector requirements will be met. Finally, the petitioner notes that the Planning Board opposes the project on the basis of the alleged "high -density" of the motel (see Planning Board letter dated November 29). The site Contains 541800 square feet of upland. Pursuant to Section 203.5 Note B the site is capable of containing 54 motel units which is five more than currently exist on the site. III CONCLUSION AND DESIRED RELIEF For the reasons set forth above, the petitioner requests that the Board of Appeals grant the desired relief and suggests that the Board enter its decision in the form attache hereto and labeled "Proposed Decision." The chairman read the correspondence into the record. Letters from the Planning Board; Bruce Murphy, Health Agent; Route 28 Task Force, Bibe Schnitzer. The Site Plan Review Comments Sheet was also read into the record. Concern for addition occupancy was addressed the petitioner's attorney stated that the occupancy permit will not change; and that although the units will be larger they would increase the number of beds. Petitioner's attorney also stated that although Site Plan Review ruled that he did not need to upgrade the site, he has done so. The Board was also concern with water run-off and how the Petitioner could keep all the water run-off of his property, petitioner stated that he did not have a problem with water run-off. In summary Petitioner's attorney stated that to grant would not be more detrimental than what already exists. The appeal was then taken under advisement. Les Campbell motioned to grant the appeal subject to: 1. Con Con satisfied, and the petitioner receive an approval. 2. no additional occupancy to be allowed. 3. all water run-off to be contained on site or rather drainage to be designed to contain all run-off on site. 4. Landscaping to be as submitted per plan dated and revised 5/5/86 The motion carried with a 4 - 1 vote. Donald Henderson, Joyce Sears, Fritz Lindquist, Les Campbell in favor and member David B. Oman against. The motion therefore carries with the requisite 4 affirmative votes.