HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3642TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK:
PETITION NO: #3642
October 12, 2000
HEARING DATE: September 28, 2000
YARMOUTH
TOWN CLERK
Z® OCT 12 M 12- 25
RECEIVED
PETITIONER: Robert & Judy Collins, dba Peach Tree Designs
PROPERTY: 173 Route 6A, Yarmouthport
Map: 122, Parcel: 120' (101/A5) Zoning District: B1
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, James Robertson, Joseph
Sarnosky, Diane Moudouris, John Richards, Robert Reed, Alternate.
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 petitioners propose to demolish an existing non -conforming shed and garage and replace
them with a new non -conforming barn and therefore seek a Special Permit per §104.3.2 (5). The
site is located within the B1 zone on the south side of Route 6A. It is improved with a non-
conforming commercial building and two non -conforming accessory buildings.
The petitioners prepare to demolish an existing one -car garage located vertically on the lot's side
lot line, and a smaller shed, located near the same (easterly) line. They propose to construct
toward the rear of the lot, a 40' x 30' barn to house materials and merchandise for the retail
business. The Barn would be non -conforming, being it would be only 9' and 10' from the
respective side lot lines. The petitioner represents that while non -conforming, it would be a
substantially greater distance from the side line than are the current buildings to be removed.
However, Board members expressed reservation about the size of the building, and the proposed
non -conformity. The bylaw requires that a new structure, such as this, comply to the current
bylaw to the maximum extent feasible. At the very least this building could be relocated or
realigned so as to be substantially more conforming. Furthermore, while the petitioner's business
may well need more storage space, the building would be more conforming if simply reduced in
size. There appeared to be no compelling reason for the size or shape proposed.
Because of the Boards concern, the petitioner requested leave to withdraw the petition. Mr.
Robertson made a motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw with out prejudice, Mr. Samosky
seen the motionich passed unanimously in favor.
David S. Reid, Clerk
4-