Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3634TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: August 30, 2000 PETITION NO: # 3634 HEARING DATE: August 24, 2000 PETITIONER: Susan M. Dacey & Bruce B. Daniel PROPERTY: 40 Pleasant Street, South Yarmouth, MA Map: 61 Parcel: 97 (45/Wl) Zoning District: RS40 k r,ECEIVE© I -'00 AW 30 an11:00 T0,Vtj CLERK & TREASURER SOUTH YAR, ",OUTH, MA MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, James Robertson, Robert Reed, Joseph Sarnosky, Diane Moudouris. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and published in The Register, the hearing was opened and held on the date stated above. The petitioner proposes to raze and replace an existing single family home, which has been damaged by fire. Because the existing house and proposed replacement, will not conform to the bylaw's set -back requirements, and because the lot contains 18,650 square feet of upland, in the RS40 district, a special permit would be required under section 104.3.2(5) The petitioner has filed with the Board architectural drawings and a revised plot plan, showing the existing and proposed structures. The petitioner acknowledges that the proposed home would not qualify as a "restoration" under section 1043.3, because it is substantially larger and different in character than the original structure. The proposed home would be of a so-called Greek Revival design. It would have three (3) habitable floors, though the third is significantly smaller in useable floor area due to the pitch of the roof. The new structure would extend forward approximately 97 toward Pleasant Street, adding approximately 350 square feet to the footprint. It would otherwise stay substantially within the footprint. The new structure would incorporate a two car garage, to be located in the northwesterly comer of the house, accessible from the Town Landing/Way. As a result, the petitioner represented that the existing detached garage shown on the plan would be removed. The southwesterly side yard setback (from the Town Landing) would be reduced marginally, from 17.6' to 16.T, and the northwesterly setback would remain at approximately 6.1'. There was some question raised as to whether the Town Landing "side' should be considered a "front" or a "side" yard. Since the status of this way to the landing was not known by the petitioner, nor by 4- the Board, this issue was not resolved. Because of the historical character of the existing home, and the district, the proposed replacement has been reviewed and authorized by the Cape Cod Commission, and the approval is on file with the Board. Several neighbors spoke and/or wrote in favor of the project. None of the .neighbors presented opposition to the project. The petitioner contends, and Board members generally agreed, that the proposed house is of a style generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Some Board members felt that the proposal was a positive improvement for the neighborhood, citing the elimination of the non- conforming garage from its proximity to the Landing and to the wetlands as a substantial improvement. Other members felt that, while the style and design of the house were attractive and compatible, the project failed to make the site "substantially less non -conforming", as required by the bylaw. The house would be significantly larger than the existing Cape -style house, increasing its height from approximately 24' to approximately 32', increasing it from two to three stories of habitable space, and increasing the habitable area significantly. While not extending the footprint significantly into the non -conforming side -yard setback, the house would be significantly increased in size and dimension within the footprint. Since the bylaw mandates that the replacement of the house not only not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, but also that it be substantially less non -conforming, some members felt that such on expansion of the house, of and within the footprint, did not satisfy this requirement. Other members felt that, given the long and narrow nature of the lot, significantly greater conformity was not feasible, and that the design would be compatible with the surrounding homes, both new and old. After further discussion, a Motion was made by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mr. Samosky, to grant the Special Permit to raze and replace the single family home, as shown in the petitioner's revised plot plan dated May 1, 2000, revised August 2, 2000, and in the petitioner's revised architectural plan dated August 17, 2000. Mr. Robertson, Mrs. Moudouris, and Mr. Samosky voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Reid and Mr. Reed voted against the motion. Since the petition failed to receive the required affirmative votes, and since no further motions were made, the petition was deemed to have been denied. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to MGL c40A §17 and must be filed within 20 days after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. David S. Reid, Clerk -2-