Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5158 147 Route 6A Decision RecordedaRM11U� ntat#i CLERK REFF FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: PROPERTY OWNER: Bk 36876 Pg22 #10416 03-17-2025 @ 02:56p TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION February 12, 2025 5158 January 23, 2025 Judith Sokoloski Jane Barrows Tatiboue4 Trustee of Barrows Group Atlantic Realty Trust PROPERTY: 147 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, MA Map & Parcel: 122.127 Zoning District: B-1 Book 32347, Page 116 Plan Book 200, Page 49 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Sean Igoe, Jay Fraprie, Dick Msrtin, John Maotoni and Barbara Murphy Notice of the hearing has been 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 held on the date as stated above. The Petitioner is Judith Sokoloski. The Property is located in the B-1 Zoning District. The Petitioner desires to construct a modest, one-story, single-family dwelling on the Property in place of previously approved mixed -use development. The Petitioner was represented by Attorney Andrew Singer and designer Gary Barber. At the hearing, Greg Bilezikian, Jason Bell, and Steven David spoke with questions and concerns about aspects of the proposal, including encroaching tree roots ftom an abutting property, the disposition of other abutting property, and fire safety. The Property has a unique history. In June 1975, the Board of Appeals granted a Variance (Decision #1305) to construct a two-story, mixed -use structure on the Property with a shop on the first floor and a residence on the second floor, plus an attached office building with a minimum of nine parking spaces. This 1975 Variance is a use variance that resulted from the fact that the Property had recently been rezoned from residential to commercial, but had inadequate commercial frontage on an older lot for an otherwise permitted use. AURUE COP�Vy'AT,TE8T. MAR ` Bk 36876 Pg23 #10416 Variance Decision #1305 remains valid and can be exercised at this time because it predates the effective date of 1975 Mass. Acts c. 808 and is thus not subject to lapse under the terms of Old Chapter 40A (see Hogan v. Hayes, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399, 403-05 (1985) and Hunters Brook Realty Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Bourne, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 76, 81 (19821). Decision #1305 was issued both without a date of expiration and under the old statute which did not have a time period for exercise. It was only in 1978 that the new version of Chapter 40A, which contains the one-year lapse time period, was adopted in Yarmouth. As such, the Property remains permitted as a single lot to have the construction denoted on the plan approved in early 1975. The Building Commissioner wrote in his letter dated November 2, 2022, that "Decision #1305 is still in effect. Any deviations from the original decision from the four conditions will require a modification to the relief granted and or [sic] additional relief...." The Applicant has requested such a modification and/or new relief because she wants to change the style and use and reduce the size of the building to be constructed, as well as shift the house on the Iot to improve setbacks and reduce the parking, intensity of use, and clearing previously approved. After discussion, the Board determined that a new variance to replace the 1975 variance was more appropriate than modifying Decision #1305. The Applicant submitted and the Board finds that the proposal conforms to the variance criteria and standards established within the Zoning Bylaw and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10. As the Board noted in the 1975 variance, "[the Property] is unique and it is unlikely that there is another like it in any business zone in the Town. But for insufficient frontage, Petitioners could of right operate a business there and they can at any time build a single family residence.... The lot to the east has only 33 11 feet of frontage and 1 /3 the area. The lot to the west has approximately 55 feet of frontage and less area than locus. It is doubtful if any lot on the South side of Route 6A in the immediate area would meet present frontage requirements, but all these other lots have been built upon." In these circumstances based on the unique shape and topographical history of the land as noted and without the requested relief, a literal enforcement of the Zoning Bylaw will prevent a less -intensive use of the land in a congested area in the village center and result in a substantial hardship. The requested relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning Bylaw because: 1. The proposed house will be smaller and less high than the previously approved, two-story mixed -use building plus attached office. With the smaller structure and elimination of a nine -plus car parking lot (to be substituted with a pervious, residential driveway), much more of the site will remain in its natural, wooded condition; 2. The previously approved side setbacks were 10 ft. on the west and 19 ft. on the east. The proposed house will be more centered on the Property with proposed side setbacks of 16.9 ft. on the west and 15 ft. on the east; 3. The front (35 ft.) and rear (166 ft.) setbacks will be conforming; A TRUE COPY ATTEST. Fkme. Aq&v� C MCITUAc KR MAR - 5 263 Bk 36876 Pg24 #10416 4. There will be no commercial use on the Property. As a result, the use conditions in Petition No. 1305 are no longer necessary or relevant; 5. Building coverage (5.2% proposed, 25% allowed), site coverage (15.3% proposed, 70% allowed), and building height (19.5 ft. proposed, 35 ft. allowed) will each be conforming; 6. The Yarmouth Old King's Highway Historic District Committee has reviewed and approved the proposed dwelling with window changes on the front elevation; 7. The existing stone wall will be retained, except as to be reconfigured with returns for the new driveway; 8. The Applicant will preserve as many of the trees on the Property as possible and has agreed to work with an arborist to address the damaged oak tree at the front of the Property and the American Elm on the westerly abutter's property with roots that extend onto the Property, 9. The proposed dwelling will be in keeping and compatible with the architectural style of the neighborhood and will not be substantially more nonconforming or substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, zoning district or Town; 10. All construction vehicles will be parked on the Property and not off -site, except with prior permission of nearby property owners; 11. There will be no negative impact on the Town's water supply or site drainage and no harm to groundwater; 12. No noise, litter, odor or other sources of potential nuisance or inconvenience to adjoining properties, public ways or neighbors are anticipated, and the proposal will not adversely affect the public good; and 13. The site will be served by all required utilities and necessary public services. Based on the above Findings and testimony received at the public hearing, the Board found that the proposal satisfies the criteria of Section 102.2.2 of the Zoning Bylaw and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10, by promoting a safer, better, and less intensive design for the Property in unique shape and topographical circumstances, and on a motion by Dick Martin and seconded by John Manton, the Board voted five (5) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant a variance from Section 203.5 of the Zoning Bylaw, to allow construction of the single-family dwelling as shown on the plans with the understanding that this Variance Decision 45158 is replacing Decision #1305, the latter which will have no further force and effect upon exercise of this Variance Decision. The Applicant thereafter requested to withdraw without prejudice so much of its Application which requested to modify Variance Decision 41305 and for a Special Permit in accordance with A TRUE COPY ATTE8r: F4 V. & dtx 4 44 . 1 TOWN CLER CLERK Bk 36876 Pg25 #10416 Section 104.3.2 of the Zoning Bylaw. Accordingly, a motion was made by Mr. Fraprie, seconded by Mr. Manton, to allow the withdrawal as requested without prejudice. The members voted unanimously (5-0) in favor of the motion. No permit shall issue until 20 days from the filing of this decision with the Town Clerk. This decision must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and a copy forwarded to the Hoard of Appeals. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to MGL c40A section 17 and must be filed within 20 days after filing of this noticeldecision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein, the Variance shall lapse if not exercised within 12 months. (See bylaw, MGL c40A § 10) Sean Igoe, Chairman 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 #5158 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. Mary A. Maslowski, CMMC, CMC MAR - 5 2025 � r• } T • 7* s"r L� Bk 36876 Pg26 #10416 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Petition #: 5I58 Date: March 5, 2025 Certificate of Granting of a Variance (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 10) The Board of Appeals of the Town of Yarmouth Massachusetts hereby certifies that a Variance has been granted to: PETITIONER: Judith Sokoloski PROPERTY OWNER: Jane Barrows Tadboue4 Trustee of Barrows Group Atlantic Realty Trust Affecting the rights of the owner with respect to land or buildings at: 147 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, MA; Map & Parcel: 122.127; Zoning District: B-1; Book 32347, Page 1 lb; Plan Book 200, Page 49 and the said Board of Appeals further certifies that the decision attached hereto is a true and correct copy of its decision granting said Variance, 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 I 1 (last paragraph) and Section 13, provides that no Variance, 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, Chairman A TRUE COPY ATTFZp BARNSTABLE COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS RECEIVED & RECO ELTC%1d)0q,LY