HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3992 January 24 2006Bk 20750 Ps279 010263
02--17-2006 of 03 a 3Sp
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: January 24, 2006
PETITION NO. #3992
HEARING DATE: November 17, 2005 & January 12, 2006
PETITIONER: Socrates & Nafsika Mitrokostas
YARMOUTH
TOIATNJ CLERK
7"S J- i! 24 M 10: 36
RECEIVED
PROPERTY: 10 & 10A Ruby Street, West Yarmouth, MA
Map and Parcel: 31.131 Zoning District: R25
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David S. Reid, Chairman, Joseph Sarnosky,
Thomas Roche, Diane Moudouris, Sean Igoe, and Douglas Campbell, 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 January 12, 2006: 'Ile
matter had been scheduled for November 17, 2005, but was continued at the petitioner's request, at that
time.
The petitioner seeks, in the alternative, a modification of an earlier granted Variance (# 1391-1976), or a
new Variance, so as to allow the continued use and occupation of a two-family dwelling on this property.
The lot is located in the R25 zone. The lot has an area of 8,870 square feet. It is improved with a one-
story home, which in 1976, was altered to become a two-family home, pursuant to Variance # 1391.
The petitioner presently proposes only non-structural remodeling of the existing structure. However, by
the terms of the earlier Variance, it lapsed upon the then owners ceasing to own the property. The
• property has changed hands at least twice since then, with the petitioner acquiring it in 2005.
The petitioner contends that the condition of the earlier Variance, limiting its benefit to the ownership by
the original petitioner, is now an unlawful condition. He therefore requests that the 1976 Variance be
modified, removing that condition. In the alternative, the petitioner requests a new Variance, seeking
only to continue the historical use. No enlargement of the building is proposed. Having only four (4)
existing bedrooms, (two in each unit) on the ground level, the use is not excessive for the lot, and the
petitioner contends that it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The petitioner also contends that
the house, as physically constructed, is not suited to being converted back to a single-family residence.
The Board finds that some relief is warranted, under the circumstances. Since the original Variance,
while of questionable original legality, has not been enforced as to its limitations, the duplex has
continued for many years, beyond the original term intended. No adverse consequences to the
neighborhood have been observed, or brought to the Boards attention. The alternatives, of either
requiring the 1979 addition to be removed, or converted to a single-family home, are impractical at best.
Had the original limitations been enforced, the present situation would not exist. The Board therefore
finds that unusual circumstances exist relative to the shape of the structure, which do not generally affect
the rest of the neighborhood, thus, since the use'already exists, its continuation will not substantially
derogate from the intent and purpose of the bylaw, and will not cause any harm to the character of the
neighborhood.
Accordingly, a motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Roche, to grant anew Variance, to allow
the present two-family use to continue, on the condition that it remain a four (4) bedroom two-family,
dwelling (2 per unit), that no structural enlargement or alteration is to be made, but that the currently
pending renovations may continue to completion. The petitioner must also file with the Board, prior to
the recording of this Variance, a revised certified plot plan, showing accurate setbacks for the existing
structures. Mr. Igoe, Mrs. Moudouris, Mr. Samosky, and Mr. Richards voted in favor of the motion; Mr.
Reid voted against the motion. The Variance is therefore granted. Mr. Richards made a motion to allow
the petitioner's request to withdraw without prejudice, the balance of the petition. The mcmbers voted
unanimously in favor.
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 notice/decision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein, a Variance shall lapse if
the rig authorized hereia are not excised within 12 months. (See MGL c4OA § 10)
David S. Reid, Clerk
2