Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 1391 May 6 1977A TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: MAY 6 1977 Hearing Date: 10/14/76 Petitioner: o —W.� & Sadie V. J. LeBlanc Petition No.: 1391 10 Ruby St. t , West arnf'avMass. DECISION The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow a duplex on an undersized lot at 10 Ruby St., West Yarmouth, Mass., shown on Assessors map ##26—J1-70. Members of Board of Appeals present: DONALD HENDERSON DAVID OMAN JOSEPH PANDISCIO HERBERT RENKAINEN PHILIP DEMPSEY 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 that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Cape Cod Times on 9/30/76 and 10/7/76, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Attorney R. Pinault for the petitioner. The following appeared in opposition: None. REASONS FOR DECISION: This hearing was originally scheduled for October 149 1976 but at the Petitioners request, was continued until November 18, 1976. Petitioner requests a variance to allow a duplex to be maintained on an undersized lot at 10 Ruby St., West Yarmouth. It appeared that Petitioner, at great expense, added on to his home to accomodate his daughter and 3 of her children, that the daughter and her family have moved out and Petitioner is faced with mounting living expense and a fixed income. It appeared that the rental of this extra living unit would alleviate some.of the Petitioners problems. Accordingly, the Board grants to Petitioner a variance to allow rental of the extra living unit, so long as the ■ Petition No. 1391 Page 2 Petitioner and/or his wife remain owners of this property. Once the ownership of petitioner and/or his wife ceases,'then this variance shall cease and the dwelling shall revert to single family status. Members of Board of Appeals voting: DONALD HENDERSON — Voted in favor DAVID OMAN - If +1 If JOSEPH PANDISCIO - " 0' 11 HERBERT RENKAINEN — PHILIP DEMPSEY — No permit issued until 22 days from the date of filing the decision with the Town Clerk. TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS per Morris Johnson Clerk, pro tem TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 1391 Theodore W. b Sadie LeBlanc November 18, 1976 Members presents Donald Henderson, David Oman, Herbert Renkainen, Joseph Pandiscio, Philip Dempsey. The Chairman called the meeting to order and read the petition. All abutters were notifiai by Certificate of Mailing and the necessary correspondence was made in the Cape Cod Times and the Dennis —Yarmouth Register. I _. Mr. Penault, Attorney: This is a house which is located on a lot directly behind the First National Bank in West Yarmouth. I have a photo showing the house on Ruby St.. The addition to the house is visible in the front. I think you should know the background on this. It is a rather unique situation. He will be 71 in 1977, is a retired mason and his sole source of income is only Social Security. He purchased this house 18 years ago, and built a small home on it. Then in about 1972 he received a callfrom Australia from his daughter, whose husband had left her with 5 children. She was very upset medically and physically. She was under the doctors care and taking 11 pills under his prescription. So he said he would send her the funds to come home. He brought her back to West Yarmouth and then proceeded to provide her a place to live. She brought 3 of the 5 children, the 3 youngest, ages 9, 10 and 12. His very small home couldn't handle them so he went to get a permit to add an extension. It was his belief she would remain with him for a long time. It was constructed. It was in compliance with the zoning at that time. It met everything. It was built, she came in — this was done with considerable expense. It took their life savings and he took a mortgage, then she decided to return to her husband and go back to Australia. They sent her back with what they had left of their savings. He is left now with no life savings, with a mortgage, sole source of income of Social Security, 5366. The result has been a financial disaster. They have now a white elephant. It can't be used by them, it can only be used as a rental unit. Otherwise, it is of little value to them. I -wanted to explain what it was all about to the Board. It was not constructed to rent it. No variance was needed at that time. For rental purposes, it is on a small lot and it shouldn't be. That is the reason for the variance now. At the time this was built, a new septic system was installed. No problem there. The only problem is the limitation of the lot size. 6500' at the time, it is plotted for 9750, just short of the 1.5 required, short about 20' x 40, to meet the require- ment. At the time the plan was approved for a duplex. We have here a unique interest which affects only the property. We have here a condition where we have a building on a lot which does not affect the rest of the zoning district in which it is located. It wouidfnot adversly affect anything or be a detriment to the public good. It is an attractive addition. All the neighbors have said it is okay with them. It will not derogate from the intent or purpose of the by—law. This is a use allowed in this district. The only thing is the lot size. We feel there is a substantial hardship financially here to them. They have lost their savings, he was a brick mason and can no longer work in that capacity. His right arm is not capable of handling the work. I have with me, a list of the monthly expensed they Petition #1391 Page 2 have. It shows the expenses compared to the income. They are about $200 a month short. This is the only way they can survive— to use this as alrental unit. Mr. Oman: I am not sure if you contradicted yourself. First of all, when was the permit taken out? Mr. Panault: .March, 1972. Mr. Oman: Is it now a duplex? Mr. Penault: It has its own separate entrance and facilities. • Mr. Oman: Is that the way it was taken out? Mr. Penault: It was taken out as an extension. She requested this and that and they gave her what she asked for and gave her -.a duplex. So it was always there. Mr. Oman: It was always there? Mr. Penaults When it was originally constructed it was not a duplex. It was put in after she moved in. Mr. Oman: You said all requirements were met. Mr. Penault: I said when it was constructed it met everything. Mr. Oman: Dgplexet are not allowed — how many duplexes in the existing area? Mr. Penault: None in the immediate area. Mr. Oman: In the general area or the neighborhood, how many duplexes in that given area? Mr. Penault: I don't know. They are all small lots. The new tot requirements took affect in 1973. Mr. Pandiscio: How many rooms? Mr. Penault: 3 bedrooms, a bath, and kitchen. Mr. Renkainen: What about parking? Will it take it? Mr. Penault: Yes, it will. Hearing closed. TOWN OF YARMOUTH 1146 ROUTE 28 SOUTH YARMOUTH MASSACHUSEITS 02664 Telephone 398-2231 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1988 Ms. Rene LeBlanc R.R. 2, Box 452 plymuth, New Hampshire 03264 Dear Ms. LeBlanc: -ziy �b31.131 on May 6, 1977 a variance was granted to Theodore W. & Sadie V. J. LeBlanc to allow a duplex to be maintained, and the rental of the extra living unit, so long as the petitioner and/or his wife remain owners of this property. once the ownership of the petitioner and/or his wife ceases, then this variance shall cease and the dwelling shall revert to a single family status. (See enclosed copy). BUILDING ELECTRICAL GAS PLt-S1BING Our records show that you are now the owner of this property; therefore, you crust take out the necessary permits and commence work to change this property back to a single family dwelling within Thirty (30) days upon receipt of this notice. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call me between 9-11 A.M., phone Number 398-2231. " Very Wy yours, Forrest E. White Building Inspector WA/b Fhc. rr�jjic rr. .cc: Board of Appeals Hoard of Health CERTIFIM MAIL #P-631 659 681 riI