Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 05.25.23 (pages 2-5) 5024 184 South Sea Ave #1On June 22, 2023, on a motion by Mr. Martin seconded by Mr. Fraprie, the Board voted 5-0 to approve these minutes. 10 - Mr. Martin: AYE - Mr. Fraprie: AYE - Mr. Mantoni: AYE - Mr. Igoe: AYE - Chairman DeYoung: AYE A motion was made by Mr. Igoe and seconded by Mr. Martin to deny the Variance as requested. Mr. Igoe: The petitioner fails to meet the criteria necessary to qualify for a Variance under our Bylaw and under Chapter 40A. On a roll call vote (5-0), the request for a Variance was denied. - Mr. Martin: AYE - Mr. Fraprie: AYE - Mr. Mantoni: AYE - Mr. Igoe: AYE - Chairman DeYoung: AYE PETITION 5024: Wakeby Development, Inc. Property Location: 184 South Sea Avenue, Unit #1, West Yarmouth, MA. Map & Lot #: 17.136.C1. Zoning District: R-25. The Applicant seeks a Special Permit per §104.3.2(2) and §104.3.2(4) and/or Variance from §203.5 for front setback relief to raze and replace a pre-existing, nonconforming dwelling within the existing footprint as part of a pre-existing, nonconforming use. John Burke, Wakeby Development, represented the homeowner: The property is located in South Sea Village Condominiums. One of 33 units established in 1981. The home is much older. Seeking relief to remove the existing structure and place it within the existing footprint. Currently, the home is a 3-bedroom, 1 bathroom over 2 stories. ~1,064 sq ft living area. We plan on erecting a 3-bedroom, 3-bath home with a full basement, on the existing footprint. The new home will be 1,577 sq ft. The height of the new home is 23.8’ at the ridge line. Use of the property will remain “as is”. Board Questions: Mr. Martin: Looks like you’re in the exact same footprint. Adding some landings, but removing a deck. It’s a condominium cottage colony. It’s not increasing the overall footprint, so I don’t have any real issue. It’s not in the flood zone. The [Condo] Board has approved your request. Mr. Fraprie: The proposed landing and the proposed bay window. In the Site Plan, you show it as two small bump outs, but in the rendering, it looks like one roof that sticks out. Which is it? Mr. Burke: On the proposed bay window, it’s a cantilever over the foundation. The foundation stays the same. For the proposed landing, it will be a stoop. Mr. Fraprie: In the rendering, you have one continuous roof over both. Mr. Burke: The way I interpret the plot plan. The first 12-18 inches off the ground. Based on the elevation, I believe the roofline is over the door and over the window. Mr. Fraprie: How far does that extend out? Mr. Burke: Looks ~3 feet off the foundation. On June 22, 2023, on a motion by Mr. Martin seconded by Mr. Fraprie, the Board voted 5-0 to approve these minutes. 11 Mr. Fraprie: The closest the building comes to the front is 14 feet today to the corner of the windmill area? Mr. Burke: Yes. Mr. Mantoni: You’re basically reconstructing what’s already there? Mr. Burke: Yes. Mr. Mantoni: It will certainly enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Igoe: We’ve dealt with these redevelopments in this cottage colony as well as others. I’ve never seen us allow this before. I don’t know that this fits into a legally preexisting nonconforming single family structure. It’s not sitting on its own lot. It’s on one big parcel. In the past, we have asked these owners to bring us some type of Comprehensive Plan as to how they may consider redeveloping the property. We’ve never been inclined to grant them relief like this on a one-off basis. The history of this particular property is that this was not a year-round cottage; it was a summer cottage. It’s a seasonal cottage. It’s meant to be a seasonal cottage. I know it’s on a big piece of property, but now you’re going to make this a year-round home. Then, they’ll all come in and ask to be year-round homes. They’re not on any subdivision plan. There’s not lot lines. There’s no setbacks. Historically, I don’t remember the Board allowing relief like this, so I would not be able to support this. Chairman DeYoung: I remember this Board not supporting relief like this in the past. So, I don’t know how we now make some new determination. The whole nature of this property over the years has changed dramatically from what it was before it became condominiums. Sean, isn’t there a restriction on this property that it not be used for year-round occupancy. Mr. Igoe: My understanding is that we have restricted any use of this property beyond seasonal. We normally require them to shut the water off. I don’t know if the Town still does that or not. They could use it from April 1 to probably November 1, then the Town shut the main off. Mr. Martin: This is one of the first condominiums within the community. I don’t believe there was a seasonal restriction imposed. There are a number of houses in the community that are used year-round. I don’t know that a restriction applies here. There’s been other relief asked for within South Sea Village. Some have asked for extra bedrooms and that has not been allowed. Some people have asked to enclose a porch and add a deck and typically that has been allowed. I don’t think there’s anything that says this has to remain seasonal. Chairman DeYoung: In 1981, the relief sought was denied. Mr. Fraprie: Petition #1875 from September 23, 1982, the addition for Unit 4 was approved. The cottage will remain a one-bedroom cottage for seasonal use only. Chairman DeYoung: As Mr. Martin said, there’s a whole bunch of decisions concerning this property because there’s a whole bunch of structures within this property. I don’t think it was intended that we would see homes of this size, with these number of bedrooms, become the norm of all the buildings in there, and I’m not going to support this tonight. Public Comments: Susan Kinnear, 41 & 45 Salt Marsh Lane, West Yarmouth: I don’t know if I agree with putting a full basement there. It’s very close to the flood zone. The underground streams that come through. Even if you’re not in a flood zone, if you put in a full basement, you will have a basement of water. I live right behind this cottage. These were originally summer cottages, but there are people who live there year-round. The cottages were built with repurposed wood, so they were not viable for year-round living. The current residents have done a lot of work. The On June 22, 2023, on a motion by Mr. Martin seconded by Mr. Fraprie, the Board voted 5-0 to approve these minutes. 12 property itself is in incredible disarray; it’s disappointing to see it look like that. Any improvement would be beneficial, if it was more in keeping with what the area is. Bob Garrahan, 184 South Sea Avenue, Unit 13, West Yarmouth: Not speaking in opposition, just a comment. There are folks that live there year-round. Right now, that house is sitting there like a haunted house. There’s no siding. They had foundation issues. It’s a tremendous eyesore. While I don’t agree with everything in the plans, I do think something needs to be done about this house for the community. Thank you. Board Discussion and Deliberation: Mr. Martin: In looking at the previous relief that was granted, I don’t see where the cottages became condos. The first decision seems to be a prospectus for a condominium complex of new buildings. Mr. Igoe: How active is the condo association if they’re not looking after buildings in disrepair? Mr. Martin: I think they’re active. They have exclusive rights to that beach next to Seagull Beach. Chairman DeYoung: They have sent in their support of the petition. They [the Condo Board] do exist from some standpoint. Mr. Fraprie: I’m looking at the last decision (most recent from February 27, 2013) in the packet. There is some consistency on supporting some of these types of things. Mr. Igoe: I think there’s consistency in supporting a reasonable amount of remodeling, but keeping it the same as it was. I don’t think you’ve seen this Board make a determination that you’re allowed to take a little broken-down cottage and turn it into a blown-out, 3-bedroom, 2.5- bath year-round home. It’s not a legally preexisting, nonconforming structure. If I may, this isn’t the only cottage colony that we deal with. We’ve had similar requests from all of them. Mr. Burke interjects with a question: If the property burns to the ground, what do you recommend? What have you done in the past? Chairman DeYoung: I’m not going to even comment on that, and I don’t think any Board Member should comment on it either. We only talk about facts; we don’t talk about suppositions. Mr. Igoe: I’d like to move the question, Mr. Chairman. Vote: A motion was made by Mr. Igoe and seconded by Mr. Mantoni to deny the Special Permit, as requested. Mr. Igoe: The petitioner failed to meet the criteria under a Special Permit. On a roll call vote (3-2), the request for a Special Permit was denied. - Mr. Igoe: AYE - Mr. Mantoni: AYE - Mr. Fraprie: NAY - Mr. Martin: NAY - Chairman DeYoung: AYE On June 22, 2023, on a motion by Mr. Martin seconded by Mr. Fraprie, the Board voted 5-0 to approve these minutes. 13 Vote: A motion was made by Mr. Fraprie and seconded by Mr. Martin to approve the Special Permit, as requested. On a roll call vote (2-3), the request for a Special Permit, was not approved. - Mr. Fraprie: AYE - Mr. Martin: AYE - Mr. Mantoni: NAY - Mr. Igoe: NAY - Chairman DeYoung: NAY Vote: A motion was made by Mr. Martin and seconded by Mr. Igoe to approve the Variance, as requested. Mr. Fraprie: I don’t think it qualifies for a Variance under the criteria. On a roll call vote (0-5), the request for a Variance, was not approved. - Mr. Fraprie: NAY - Mr. Martin: NAY - Mr. Mantoni: NAY - Mr. Igoe: NAY - Chairman DeYoung: NAY PETITION 5017: (continued from 05/11/23) Jeffrey and Kimberly Lareau, 3 Jerusha Lane, West Yarmouth, MA. Map & Lot #: 23.172. Zoning District: R-25. The Applicant seeks a Special Permit per §104.3.2(2) and/or Variance from §203.5 for front setback relief on pre- existing, nonconforming lot to build inground pool. Chairman DeYoung: To refresh everyone’s memory, it was a corner lot and we suggested that the petitioner look at other alternatives. Jeff Lareau reviewed the plans with the pool builder, deciding to move the shed and put the pool in the backyard as the Board suggested. Chairman DeYoung: I looked at the plans and you went out of your way to accommodate our concerns. Board Questions: Mr. Igoe: I see that it’s set back from the bulkhead. Do you know the distance? Mr. Lareau: It’s roughly 8 feet from the bulkhead. Mr. Igoe: Looks like it might be a little more, but I think you need a minimum of 15. You’re going to have setback requirements from the foundation. I think the petitioner did a good job working with the Board. I think the alternative site for the pool looks OK to me. Mr. Mantoni: With regards to the shed, you have 4 options on the plan.