Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5186 33 Seminole Dr Letter of Opposition 1RECEIVED Marybeth K. Collings 3 Concord Lane AUG 13 2025 Yarmouthport, MA 02675 yAjimcxrrH BOARD OF APPEALS August 13, 2025 SENT VIA EMAIL: dfallon@yarmouth.ma.us Town of Yarmouth, MA Attn.: Zoning Board of Appeals RE: August 14, 2025, ZBA Hearing - Objections to Special Permit/Variance Request Matter Regarding 33 Seminole Dr., Petition 5186 To Whom It May Concern: As the abutting property owner at 3 Concord Lane for over 40 years, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the applicants' request for a special permit(s) and/or variance(s) related to the above -referenced matter. The proposed project would have a direct and detrimental impact on my property, and I respectfully submit the following concerns for your collective consideration: 1. Lack of Demonstrated Hardship My review of the Town's published guidance regarding the issuance of a variance would lead me to conclude that the applicants have not met the stated requirements to establish a claim of "hardship:' It appears that the overall layout and typography of the applicants' property does not preclude them from full use of their home or garage or from pursuing other less intrusive building options. This parcel is not of an irregular shape or impacted by ledge or slopes. I feel that this application is contrary to the intent of our bylaws to promote the welfare of all town inhabitants. Additionally, the setback relief sought is not minimal. It creates a reduction in distance of approximately 25 percent. 2. Impact on My Property Use and Enjoyment Given the proximity of the applicants' proposed new master bedroom, bathroom, closet and family room to my long-standing deck, this proposal would significantly diminish my ability to enjoy my deck space. The applicants' proposed plan would reduce my deck views, the amount of sunlight on my deck and the amount of natural light flowing from the deck area into the adjoining rooms (i.e. my family room and a bedroom/office). 3. Negative Effect on Property Value The applicants' proposed plan would not only reduce the value of my home but also make it Less desirable to prospective buyers. It may have a similar detrimental impact upon other neighbors. 4. Existing Non -Compliance and Encroachment at 33 Seminole Applicants have installed a stone patio and fire pit area adjacent to their driveway in close proximity to my deck and home structure. This area includes outdoor seating, a shade umbrella and plantings, assembled around a fire pit used to burn wood. I do not believe that this fire pit complies with restrictions regarding structure and combustible distances. Naturally, I am very concerned that it poses a serious fire hazard to my property. Coincidentally, I recently engaged a surveyor to identify and mark my property lines, since the original markers were no longer evident. The intended purpose of this effort was to assist me with making future landscape decisions. Interestingly, the surveyor's preliminary report indicates that the applicants have installed plantings on my property. Please also reference the enclosed recent photos in support of these points. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this Board deny the applicants' requests, which will be heard as part of the August 14, 2025 ZBA hearing. Thank you for your thoughtful review of my concerns. sin3vEly, MO(ybeth K. Collings 30q,ncord Lane Yarmo-bWvort. MA mkc/with enclosures cc: Travis Collings Key Massachusetts Legal Variance Petition References Legal Reference Summary Establishes four conjunctive criteria that must all be met to justify a variance: (a) M.G.L. c. 40A, §10 unique soiVtopographyconditions, (b) substantial hardship, (c) no detriment to public good, and (d) no derogation from zoning intent. Blackman v. Bd. of Appeals of Barnstable, Variances are strongly disfavored and 334 Mass. 446 (1956) should be granted only in rare and exceptional cases. Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass. App. Ct. Zoning boards must make rigorous findings 215 (1982) of fact when granting a variance. Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass. Reinforces the need for detailed findings App. Ct. 349 (2001) when granting a variance. Dion v Bd. of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Places the burden of proof on the Mass. 547 (1992) petitioner and board to justify the variance. Warren v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Clarifies the statutory prerequisites under Amherst, 383 Mass. 1 (1981) M.G.L. c. 40A, §10.