Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 2810 Yankee Village MotelTOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk Hearing Date: March 28, 1991 Petition No.: 2a10 Petitioner: John R. Barker I +-•1 r d/b/a Yankee Village Motel 275 Main Street, Route 28 West Yarmouth, MA 02673 '91 APR 17 p 9 :49 �N YftRmoU,ts DECISION TOWN CCtRK & EREASUH.;+ The Petitioner seeks a -special permit and/or a variance from the terms of the Zoning By -Law to allow the rehabilitation of the motel. Specifically, the plans call for (1) razing and removing the existing indoor pool and pool enclosure, (2) razing and removing the existing rental unit building in the center of the site, (3) razing and removing building III and replacing it with a new structure and (4) removing the existing outdoor pool and pool deck and replacing same with a new pool and pool enclosure. The motel constitutes a pre-existing, non -conforming use and structure and Board of Appeals relief is required for any change, extension or alteration. A hearing was duly advertised by publication, notice was sent to abuttors and a hearing was held on the application on March 28, 1991 at the Yarmouth Town Offices. The following appeared in support of the application: Michael B. Stusse, attorney for the applicant, John R. Barker, Petitioner, and the Route Task Force (by letter). The following appeared in opposition to the Petitioner: the Conservation Commission (by letter). MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PRESENTS Leslie E. Campbell David Reid Roger Tuttle Fritz Lindquist Donald F. Henderson REASON FOR DECISION The Board heard evidence from the Petitioner as to the age, and past use of the premises. The Board also examined the revised plans submitted by the Petitioner. Said plans being entitled "Site Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA Prepared for John R. Barker, Yankee Village Motel, Scale 1" = 20' Dated January 17, 1991, Revised March 20, 1991 by Down- Cape Engineering." After hearing the evidence, the Board finds that the Yankee Village Motel is a pre-existing, non -conforming use and structure as that term is defined in Section 104.3 of the By -Law. The Board also finds that the proposed changes would be no more detrimental to the neighborhood than'the existing structures and further finds that the shape and topography of the lot that is being encompassed on two sides by wetlands and on the west by a creek constitute a hardship unique to the parcel owing to its shape and topography. After discussion a motion was made by David Reid and seconded by Roger Tuttle and it was voted to grant the special permit and variance to allow the alterations set forth on the plans upon the following limitations: (1) That there be no increase in the number of units and the allowed occupancy of the motel (2) That all construction comply with the requirements of building in a flood plain as per the State Building Code and Yarmouth Zoning By -Law (3) That the area of the existing enclosed pool be planted and landscaped and (4) That the parking and landscaping be upgraded as per the plan revised March 20, 1991 Those voting in favor of the motion: David Reid, Leslie E. Campbell, Roger Tuttle and Fritz Lindquist. Opposed: Donald F. Henderson Therefore, the motion to grant the special permit/variance is approved. No permit to issue until twenty (20) the decision with the Town Clerk. DAVID S. REID Clerk days from the date of filing c x Yt BOARD OF APPEALS Name: John R. Barker Appeals No. P, ' o Address: Glenwood Avenue Hearing Da - West _Yarmouth, MA 02673 Paid: _r7s'. U%:> PETITIONER: Name: c o Michael B. Stusse Address: 25 Mid -Tech Drive, Suite C West Yarmouth MA 02673 P7fM\1F0 Telephone: (508) 775-3433_ �r "` -r _ i n '"tspector Thispp i�,�,tion is for the property and/df)WHs(bru101". pcated at: �jj l `p • _ Assj9#j"jCL6 1Ap3 ifUFJ4 Parcel No. M-3 I/We, hereby request the action checked below: 1. Appeal from decision of the Building Inspector to grant permit and petition your Board for a public hearing on this act':_)n. 2. Application for Special Permit under Section(s) 104. 2. of the Yarmouth Zoning By-law and/or for a use authorized in tk "Use Regulation Schedule" Section(s) 5 3. Petition for Variance from the terms of the Yarmr n Zoning By-law to allow: In order to grant petition, a variance of Section. of the By-law is necessary. SEE ATTACHED 4. The Petitioner further requests that the Boar. raivP its rules and regulations where it deems necessary and to grant ch other and further relief that it might find just and proper. MIB. ST S� ARDITO, SWEENEY, ITSE, ROBERTSON & DUI , P.C. 25 MID -TECH DRIVI SUITE C WEST YARMOUTH, M,' 2673 (508) 775-3433 The applicant requests r lief from the Zoning Board of Appeals to remodel the Yankee Village Motel which motel is on a general business district and is a Zq^conforming use. Such remodeling to consist in the demolition and removal of three existing structures and the building of a new 12-uni. structure with eAclosed pool. The applicant request the following relief: (a) A Special Permit pursuant to Section 104.3.2 to allow alteration of a non -conforming use and structure. (b) A variance from Section 405.1 of the bylaw to allow reconstruction of a building within 50 feet of a designated wetland. (c) A variance or Special Permit to allow relief from the setback requirements of Section 203.5. (d) A variance or Special Permit from Section 301 to allow parking as shown on the plan. (e) That the Board of Appeals waive its rules and regulations where it deems necessary; and (f) Grant such further and other relief as the Board may deem just and proper. TOWN OF YARMOUI'H it1A- W 4h�q IVy APPEAL # 2810 PETITIONER: John Barker, Yankee Village Motel MEMBERS OF BOARD PRESENT: Leslie Campbell, David Reid, Fritz Lindquist, Donald Henderson, Roger Tuttle. Fritz: My concern is back to the size of the rooms. If my memory serves me, in modern motel rooms there are double beds. If the rooms are expanded there will be more intense use of the facilities. Les: Bigger rooms don't necessarily mean more people. Fritz: That isn't a big issue with me though. Roger: Rooms will be larger, and there are two double beds but most likely they will be used for families. You usually rent to a family with double beds. I don't feel that there will be any more cars. Don: It has too many units to begin with. The site under today's by law indicates that under the formula in existence, forgetting the wetlands, you could put 58 units on this site, because I think you need 25,000 square feet plus 1000 square feet per each additional room so he could get the number of units that he has got on this site, if he didn't have wetlands on three sides of it. It is such a tiny little site sticking out into the marsh and I just don't like it. It also bothers me that he came in last year and put in the three little tiny additions on the representation, (maybe not the representation), I got the feeling that this was all he was going to do. Then the building got gussied up and now all of a sudden we are going to have 12 new units out in the marsh. And they really are in the marsh, when you look at it. I understand that it is the most desirable part of the property and it is further away from Route 28. It bothers me that with these little tiny lots we just keep cramping so much on them. I guess the criteria for the special permit that they are looking for is that the additions won't be anymore detrimental than what is there now and I guess we have to look at it in term that we are getting rid of one pool, we are getting rid of a building that is 5 feet from the marsh or the creek and you now have a two story building so you won't have as much ground coverage. I don't know why they can't pull the building back 50 feet from the wetland. I don't know why we should have to give them a 5 ft variance there. Roger: At high tide the water was right up close to the building and I would almost say that I wouldn't agree with the 45 but being there at the high tide it was much closer. With the new deck and everything if it stays in the same footprint I guess that it will be okay. Don: Technically he needs a variance because he is taking down a building. He said he felt he needed a variance because he is taking it down to the ground and rebuilding it. David: As I recall that was my position a few weeks ago. Since this new building is going to be attached to the old building I would make an argument that it is not an independently entirely a new building. It is attached to the existing building. David: I will make a motion to grant him what he asked for. A special permit. I don't really know if he needs a variance. Don: He said he needed a use variance and a dimensional variance. David: I don't think he needs a use variance. He is not changing the use, he isn't even expanding the use. Use per say. My inclination would be to deny that without prejudice because I don't think he needs it in order to do what he is asking for. The other thing is whether he needs a variance or not for that new construction building 3 and the new enclosure around the pool. Fritz: It is the 50 feet from the wetlands that he needs a variance for. David: He only needs a variance from that if the new building, if we are considering that to be a complete raising and replacement of the original building. Don: What about the proposed pool building. Fritz: That is 25 feet from the wetland. David: The only thing that is confounding me is that it is all attached to the existing building. If it is attached to the existing building would it not qualify as an extention of the existing non conforming building, and therefore be a special permit and not require a variance even though he is taking down an older building. Don: Any new structure within 50 feet of the wetland, doesn't that require a variance? David: But it is also an extention. Don: I know that you talked about the 12 unit building being attached in some fashion, but is it attached to the proposed pool building? David: Yes. Fritz: Building one and building three are connected via the indoor pool route. I think he needs a variance for the wetland business. Don: It seems to me that even if it is attached he still needs a variance because it talks about all structures in the by law. David: Okay. I guess that is probably right. So, to grant a special permit and variance from the 50 foot wetland setback requirement. On the conditions that: 1) There is no increase in the occupancy allowed. 2) They must comply with the flood plain regulations and by law Fritz: What about additional plantings on the Rt 28 side where the pool building was. David: What would you like? Fritz: Trees at 20 feet on center. David: We don't know what the buffer is there now do we. Fritz: There is very little. Forrest: There is not much room. David: The area where the existing pool is to be removed outside of the parking is going to be revegetated. David: So parking and upgrade as per the plan. Of course it is subject to getting the Conservation Commission permission. David: Does that cover it. He doesn't have the required parking spaces but since he is not adding any units, he is not required to put any additional parking spaces. David: Okay, so the motion is to grant the requested special permit and variance paragraphs a and b of his request including the 50 ft setback from the wetlands. The conditions are: 1) There be no increase in allowed occupancy 2) He will comply with the flood plain construction standards of the by law and the state building code 3) the area where the existing pool in the northerly portion is being removed will be revegetated outside of the parking area 4) the parking and landscaping will be upgraded as per the plan of the revision date of March 20, 1991. Roger: One word, occupancy. I think we need to say no increase in units. He is still going to have 50 and that is it. If you say occupancy he changes his mind and puts in all double beds in all of the rooms and you can deny him on that because you say that they cannot increase the occupancy. I would say no increase of units. David: Well the representation was also made that there wasn't going to be any increase in the number of beds for the intended requested relief. So there will be no increase in the number of units. Don: I would just like someone to convince me that the variance criteria have been met. Are the elements of a variance critria met. I think the topography and the shape of the parcel was proven. David: He is no closer to the wEtland than he is already and he is moving farther away. I think that is going in the right direction in terms of the intent of the by law. The decks are going to be a little bit further away. Les: I am in favor of the motion and the site is being improved. There is a certain hardship owing to the lot. I don't think that this upgrade will be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. All those in favor please say aye. David Reid, Les Campbell, Roger Tuttle and Fritz Lindquist voted in favor. Donald Henderson voted in opposition. A2 P L I C AN T: YANKEE VILLAGE MOTEL LOCATION OF PROPERTY: DATE: t /22/1_49L - 275 ROUTE 28 , W.Y. SIX OR SEVEN SETS OF PLANS SUBMITTED PERSONS PRESENT AT REWTE:. HEaRI:NG Eop-jz.a,; T, l#c ri 1 FR2 SA 0 1 A D rTt=2 2�t tb SITE PLAN MAP: 24 idT: M--3 YES: --x N O : — f PcJcr v4 So ►.s 3 0 � ►j :L3i4(o<eA - i i * • /rAj r --lZS 'tA /Lc c cZ 1, M_.GZi/1 Z 'MOW- i , .. �, ti C�,�c.1.l..L �-c-ZL.•�G( ,�',� I CNI /� i ./.�� /��C-G�-vrnc.n�t rat lrY.FF jr S BO. °—1) 0- H7 T _._ DEFT.,�yj FIB - DE_ _ .IT CO::S VA IO:i D7- T I;A -_ Dr?T. - J^