Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3740TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: #3740 HEARING DATE: June 13, 2002 YARM01!TH TOWN ' 'i .F RK 107 JUN 27 Pit I: 20 RECâ–º-:lVED PETITIONER: Robert F & Judith Collins, dba Peach Tree Designs PROPERTY: 173 Route 6A, Yarmouthport Map: 122 Parccl: 120, (101/A5) Zoning District: B1 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, Joseph Sarnosky, Diane Moudouris, James Robertson, Robert Reed. 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 seeks a Special Permit per bylaw §104.3.2(5), or in the alternative a Variance, in order to be permitted to construct a detached barn, replacing two pre-existing non -conforming accessory structures. Tile property is located within the B1 zone, on the south side of Route 6A, Yarmouthport. The site contains 20,890 square feet of area. It is improved with a principal structure, housing the petitioner's business, Peach Tree Design (a furniture and interior decorating business) and a second floor apartment. The site also contains a garage and smaller outbuilding, used for storage of the business's merchandise. Both accessory buildings are in poor physical condition, and both are very close to the site's easterly side line (1.4" and 2.8" respectively). The petitioner proposes to demolish these existing accessory buildings, and to construct a new barn/storage building. The new building would be located to the rear of the lot. The final proposal calls for the building to measure 24' x 36', and to be 16' from the easterly lot line and 17' from the westerly lot line. The building was originally proposed to be substantially larger, but the request was revised in response to issues raised by the Building Commissioner and abutters. The proposed building, as shown on the final site plan (revised through 06/06/02) and the final architectural drawings (dated May 8, 2002 and received by the Board on June 7, 2002), would be used to store furniture and related items. No manufacturing or service would be performed in -1- the building (other than the owner's incidental cleaning and preparation of merchandise for display and sale). No customer accessible area are proposed. The building would be used solely for accessory storage for the business, which is an allowed use. The neighbors who were present at the hearings and had met with'the petitioner before the final hearing, are generally in agreement with the request. The replacement building will be much further away from the lot line then the former structures. It has been reduced in size in order to best fit the long narrow lot. It will have barn doors at the rear, facing the residential abutters, but these are for aesthetic reasons only (and may in fact be false doors). At the request of the engineering department, additional on -site drainage facilities have been provided. This is all new, as no formal drainage existed before. Various conditions were reviewed with the petitioner, in anticipation of a positive motion. The majority of the board members find that the proposal, as modified and conditioned, meets the ref uirements of the bylaw. The replacement building will be less non -conforming, being located much further from the lot line and as close to conforming as reasonably feasible for the site. The replacement building will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. It will not alter the principal use or business activity. It may result in larger deliveries to and from the site, but perhaps with reduced frequency of trips since they will not need to travel to and from their current off site location. The traffic flow controls, and the removal of the garage, may also improve circulation on the site. Some upgrades in the separation of the business from the residences will be accomplished. Therefore, a motion was made by Mrs. Moudouris, seconded by Mr. Igoe, to grant the Special Permit to raze and replace the buildings, as requested, as shown in the final plans, on the following conditions: 1. The new building shall be used for storage only, as proposed, and no hazardous materials shall be permitted, 2. Access shall be provided as shown on the plan, 3. Smoke/fire alarms shall be installed in the new building, 4. Additional planting and a fence shall be included in the easterly buffer to visually screen the parking lot from the adjoining residential lot, 5. All parking spaces shall be not less than 10' from the easterly lot line, 6. The new building shall not contain any domestic water supply or facilities/plumbing, 7. No habitable space shall be provided or allowed in the new building, i 8. The business's hours of operation shall end by 5:00PM. -2- Mr. Reid, Mrs. Moudouris, Mr. Igoe, and Mr. Richards voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Robertson voted opposed to the motion. The Special Permit is therefore granted. A second motion was made by Mr. Robertson, seconded by Mrs. Moudouris, to allow the balance of the petition (as to alternate forms of relief requested) to be withdrawn, with out prejudice. The members voted unanimously in favor of this motion. 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 c40A section 17 and must be filed within 20 days after filing of this noticeldecision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein, the Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See bylaw § 103.2.5, MGL c40A §9) Unless otherwise provided herein, a Variance shall lapse if the rights authorized herein are not excised within 12 months. (See MGL c40A § 10) David S. Reid, Clerk -3-