The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5182 7 Grove and 9 Vernon Decision Recorded`MMlllil H TOWN CLERK RE J11 15'25uw1.1`.3h FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: Bk 37116 Pg42 #31371 08-06-2025 @ 10:03a TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION July 15, 2025 5182 July 10, 2025 Kent A. Stunt and Andrea T. Graveline, Trustees of the Grove Street Nominee Trust PROPERTY: 7 Grove Street and 9 Vernon Street, West Yarmouth, MA Map 20, Parcel 34 and 36 Zoning District: R-25 Title: Book 28035, Page 47 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Sean Igoe, Richard Martin, Jay Fraprie, John Manton( 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 stated above. The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit per §104.3.5 #2 to combine, redivide, and reconfigure lot auras between two abutting residential properties to make each lot identical in square footage. Specifically, the applicant proposes to redivide the Properties at 7 Grove Street and 9 Vernon Street so that both properties are equal in square footage and beach frontage. These properties are located in the R-25 Zoning District, which currently requires lots to have a minimum of 25,000 square feet. The property at 7 drove Street contains 12,000 square feet, and is improved with a single family dwelling constructed in approximately 1900, and the property at 9 Vernon Street contains 24,800 square feet, and is improved with a single fancily dwelling constructed in approximately 2023. The plan is to redivide the lots into equal 18,400 square foot lots, with each lot having equal beach frontage. There are no proposed changes to either structure, each of which will maintain the setback distances to the existing and proposed boundary lines. Pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning Bylaw Section 104.3.5(2), a Special Permit may be granted when the owner or owners of abutting lots, whether or not any of such lots are currently developed, wish to combine or redivide such lots, but where one or more of the existing lots do not conform to the current dimensional requirements, and where one or more of the resulting lots will not conform to the current dimensional requirements. A TRUE COPY ATTEST; �i. &4#wef 0 C.MO / TOWN C RK AUG - 5.2925 Bk 37116 Pg43 #31371 The project must meet the following conditions as recited in Bylaw Section 104.3.5: A. the combination or re -division does not increase the number of non -conforming individually buildable lots over the number of such lots as presently exist. The applicant demonstrated that there are currently two improved lots which, when reconfigured, will continue to be two improved lots. B. the combination or re -division shall not increase any pre-existing non-conformnv nor create any new non -conformity as to any existing structure or use of the lots involved or affected by the combination or re -division; The applicant opined that this section did not apply in this case. Massachusetts has a bifurcated process when it comes to lots created by the division of land under the subdivision control law's "existing structures exemption," codifced in Massachusetts General Laws ("M.G.L.") c. 41, § 8 1 L ("§ 81L" ). § 8 1 L allows a Planning Board to endorse a plan through the "approval not required" CAW') process when a tract of land, on which two or more buildings were standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in a city or town, is divided into separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remains standing. However, if the new boundary lines creates non -conformities based on those structures, then the Zoning Board of Appeals must provide the necessary relief for that non -conformity. The Supreme Judicial Court, in Palitz v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Tisbua, 470 Mass. 795 (2015) held that those lots created by 81 L did not entitle the existing structures on newly divided lots "grandfather" protection against new zoning nonconformities created by the division. In this case, the line that is being redrawn does not create any new nonconformity regarding the structures on the lot or uses to be conducted thereon, as the portion of the lot line being reconfigured does not affect the current conforming setbacks from the two homes located on the lots. C. if more than one adjoining vacant, non -conforming lot is created by, or is the result of the combination or redivision, it/they may be approved for construction of a single family residence thereon provided that each lot: The Board found that this proposal would not create any new vacant lot, and that this section did not apply. D. the development and use of all of the resulting and affected lots as proposed would be consistent with the current and future development of the neighborhood and zoning district, would not cause or substantially contribute to any undue nuisance, hazard, or congestion in the neighborhood or zoning district, would substantially promote the intent and purpose of the Bylaws currently in effect, and the entire combination or redivision proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this sub -section. In this case, the resulting use of the properties will be consistent with the neighborhood and zoning district (R-25), will not cause or substantially contribute to any undue nuisance, hazard, or congestion in the neighborhood or zoning district, would substantially promote the intent and TRUE COPY ATTEST: WAllf a. &41&� �6TN CWUF Bk 37116 Pg44 #31371 purpose of the Bylaws currently in effect, and the entire combination or redivision proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this sub -section. One letter in opposition was filed, but without any explanation for the objection. The Board noted that Section 104.3.5(1), which explains the purpose of this Section of the Zoning Bylaw, states that "it is the intention of this sub -section to accomplish maximum feasible compliance with the intent and purpose of the current zoning bylaws where fill compliance is not possible but where development of the available land may otherwise be accomplished without substantially derogating from the intent and purposes of the bylaws." Accordingly, a motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Murphy, to grant the request for a Special Permit pursuant to Bylaw Section 104.3.5(2), for the reasons that the petitioner met all of the criteria for that relief. The members voted as follows: Mr. Mantoni AYE Mr. Igoe AYE Mr. Fraprie AYE Mr. Martin AYE Ms. Murphy AYE 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 c44A section 17 and must be filed within 20 days after filing of this noticeldecision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein, the Special Penn it shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See bylaw § 103.2.5, MGL c40A §9) s5r7 Sean Igoe, Chairman CERTINCATION OF TOWN CLERK I, 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 #5182 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 AUG - 5 W A TRUE COPY ATTEST. Y FW • &44 ? 4� / TOWNCLER AUG - 5 2025 Bk 37116 Pg45 #31371 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHCiSETTS TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Petition #: 5192 Date: August 5, 2025 Certificate of Granting of a Special Permit (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: Kent A. Stout and Andress T. Graveline, Trustees of the Grove Street Nominee Trust Affecting the rights of the owner with respect to land or buildings at: 7 Grove Street and 9 Vernon Street; West Yarmouth, MA; Map 20, Parcel 34 and 36; Zoning District: R-25; Title: Book 28035, Page 47 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 MIA., Section 11 (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. to r Sean Igoe, Chairman A TRUE COPY ATTEST: DARNSTMRECEIVEDLREGISTRY4 COUNTY DEEDS A*o&D§�C!'RONICALLY