HomeMy WebLinkAbout5205 Exhibit 04 Decision 1321 10.16.1975EXHIBIT 4
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
Filed with Town Clerk:
Hearing Date:5/15/75
Petitioner: Oak Harbor Associates
477 Main St.
Yarmouthport, Mass.
RECORD AND DECISION
The petitioner has requested from this Board, a, rider Sec.
18.07 of the zoning by-law for the Town of Yarmouth, which section provides for
open space village developments. The Petitioner's parcel of land north of Route
6A, in the vicinity of and west of Manchester Rd., and Bray Farm Rd., consists of
approximately 194 acres. Petitioner requests the Special Permit under Sec. 18.07
residential buildings each containing no more than 24 dwelling units and together
containing no more than 750 dwelling units, 83 garage -storage sheds, a community
center complex, a gate house, a garden club building, a sewage treatment plant and
facility, maintenance buildings and facilities, and related accessory features and
facilities for the use and enjoyment of residents of the development, such as tenn-
courts, a golf course, swimming pools, gardens, trails and outdoor cooking areas.
The petitioner also requests approval from this Board for construction of the
project in successive stages with building permits issuing from time to time for
each successive stage.
The petitioner also filed with its Special Permit request, a petition for a
series of variances from Sec. 18.07 of the zoning by-law and from other sections o-
the by-law. Some of the variances are requests for accessory structures and uses I
specifically provided for under Sec. 18.07. All of the building structures and
facilities listed above, except for the residential buildings themselves, fall wit)
this category and are included in the variance petition.
Lot 11, which is the site of an existing Federal Aviation Administration Conti
Facility, may or may not be utilized for housi-ng purposes. Petitioner states the
dwelling units depicted on the overall Development Plan on Lot 11 will only be
possible if the F.A.A. terminates the control facility and vacates the premises;
should this occur, the Developer seeks to construct up to 32 dwelling units on Lot
but in this event, the number of units on one or more of the lots listed would be
reduced by an equivalent number, so that the overall number of dwelling units in
the development will in no case exceed 750.
For purposes of our decision on the Petitioner's Special Permit request, we
treat these accessory structures and facilities as part of the project as if pro-
vided for in Sec. 18.07 inasmuch as they are important and integral parts of the
development proposal.
As a consequence, we apply the criteria, tests and requirements of Sec. 18.07
against the proposed development project as a whole, including these accessory
structures and facilities. It is to be noted, however, that the special permit
granted by us in this case may not by itself authorize the construction of such
accessory buildings or facilities; to the extent these are not provided for under
Sec. 18.07, the construction requires variance authorization.
-1-
}
We note further that except in the case of the Sewage Treatment Plant and
facilities, without which the project could not advance beyond initial stages,
our conclusions as respects compliance with these criteria, tests and require-
ments do not depend on any accessories being built so that our decision in this cas.
would be unaffected by subsequent denial by us of any one or more accessory varianc,
or by court determination of the invalidity of any one or more.
Under Sec. 18.07, Par. 3C9 the Board of Appeals was to receive with the
application, an overall development plan indicating boundaries of the site, pro-
posed land and building uses, location of common open space and other features. Un
Par. 3D, the application also was to include a statement of each land owners intere
of the land to be developed, a statement of the form of organization proposed to ow
and maintain the common open space, and a statement of the substance of covenants
and grants of easements to be imposed upon the use of land and the structures. A
development schedule is also called for.
The Board believes these requirements have been met, as the petitioner's
overall development plan contains on its face more of the information required
under Sec. 18.07, 3C; the balance is provided in the notes attached to the plan. T
statements required under Par. 3D are attached to the petition. The petition
therefore complies with the by-law.
Members of Board of Appeals present:
Thomas N. George, Robert Sherman, David Oman, Philip Dempsey, Herbert
Renkainen.
It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice then
of the 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 Standard Times on 4/30 and 5/7/75, the hearing was
opened and held on the date first above written.
The following appeared in favor of the petition:
Richard Anderson, Attorney Marion McKinnon by letter
J. Robertson Robert Helwig by letter
J. Karras E.B.Duar by letter
Mr. Chandler Richard G. Allen by letter
The following appeared in opposition.
DuPont P.J.Rozelle by letter
The petitioners parcel of 194 acres more or less lies North by Route 6A (a
State Highway), East of the Bass River Rod and Gun Club and by the Town of Yarmout,
South of a vacant tract of land and Bray Farm Road, an unimproved dirt road, and
West of several subdivisions which have not been fully developed.
The only structure on the petitioners parcel is a Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration Flight Control facility situated in the southwest corner. This facility,
we understand, exists under a short-term lease; we are unaware whether the F.A.A.
-2-
intends to renew the lease. We are familiar with the structures constituting
the Flight Control facility.
The parcel is bisected north and south by Hockanom Road which is inimproved
and unpaved. We believe the traffic over Hockanom Road is slight. It provides
alternate access from Route 6A to the Town's conservation land situated Northwest
of the petitioners parcel; Bray Farm Road provides equal access to this land.
The parcel is entirely within the RD-2 zoning district, and therefore subject
to the provisions of Sec. 18.07 of the by-laws.
At the hearing, the petitioner presented nine plans as follows:
1. Overall Development Plan (in color).
2. plan showing control lines and parking.
3. Plan showing Buffer zones.
4. Plan showing proximity of proposed residence buildings to
existing single family dwellings.
5. Plan showing water system.
6. Utility plan.
7. Plan showing existing trees to be saved and open spaces.
8. Plan showing proximity of lucus to wetlands.
g. Emergency access and circulation plan.
In addition, there were reports by Childs, Bertman, Tseckares Associates, Inc.,
land planners; Dana F. Perkins and Sons, Inc., Environmental Engineers; Dr. John
M. Teal, Ecologist and marine biologist, and Edward E. Kelley, registered land
surveyor.
The report by Childs, Bertman, Tseckares Associates describes the clustering
g in termi
or grouping of buildings in residential areas
ation,� con#ormthe ety to existct of ingntopographl
of preservation of existing and other advantages
visual screenings, control of sight lines to provide scale,
not herein enumerated. The report specifically compares the proposed open space
development to conventional subdivision plans for this parcel.
The report by Dana F. Perkins and Sons, Inc., the firm which prepared the
drainage and utilities plans, was filed by Donald E. Martinage who was present at
the meeting. The report covers the adequacy of public water supply, provisions in
the plan for handling of surface water run off and the adequacy of the proposed
sewage treatment system.
Mr. Martinage, in answer to questions, described the plant as a secondary
treatment system with polishing filters designed to produce an approved solid
waste.
—3-
Dr. John M. Teal, an ecologist, set forth his conclusions with respect to
the superiority of the proposed plan over a conventional one in respect to con-
servation, protection of vegetation, and effects of this project on tidal marshes
which would be subject to the water running off of this parcel.
Dor Teal during questions stated that he was familiar with the end products
from the proposed sewage treatment plan and that in his opinion, the effluent from
the plant would have no effect on Chase Garden Creek, or on the research station
situation on the Creek, or on any of the ponds surrounding the development.
Edward E. Kelley's report attests to the number of square feet in the peti-
tioners parcel.
There was presented at the meeting the petitioners environmental impact report
in draft form dealing with matters of traffic flow, congestion on Route 6A in
Yarmouth, with the adequacy of the proposed sewage treatment plant and with other
environmental considerations.
The qualifications for Dr. Teal and the firm of Dana F. Perkins and Sons, Inc.,
are set forth in the enviornmental impact report; those for the firm of Childs,
Bertman Tseckares and Associates, Inc., were separately presented. We are familiar
with the qualifications of Edward E. Kelley, a local registered land surveyor.
In our judgement, all of these firms and persons named above are well qualifiec
within their fields of expertise and we accept their reports, opinions and con-
clusions as the equivalent of expert testimony.
At the hearing, there was a slide presentation (the slides for which were left
with us as part of the documentation in this case), including:
1. Chart showing typical advancement of construction in successive
stages with matching dedication of open space areas to comply
with Sec. 1$.07, 4F.
2. Plans showing lot and road layout for typical single family and
duplex subdivisions.
3. Chart comparing number of feet of subdivision streets required
for the proposed Open Space Village Development and the typical
single family and duplex subdivisions shown on the plans referred
to above.
4. Plan showing a typical residential cluster in larger scale than
on the Overall Development Plan.
The petitioner filed with us at the hearing, copies of
of Oak Harbour Circle as prepared for and presented to the
in connection with the subdivision of the locus.
Plans and Profiles
Yarmouth Planning Board
-4-
•Finally, the petitioner submitted with the
reaortswa statement
le and on f the
likely
n space
effect of the proposed golf course on the project
areas in particular.
COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA OF PARAGRAPH -F OF SECTION iB.O plan highlighting
The petitioners overa hat will benavailableototresidentsher with tof the OakHarbour
the trees and open spaces parcel will be set aside in blocks
Development show at least e %w of the and bicycle trails, nature paths, ball fields
large enough to accommodate walking,
se. Furthermore,
and even a golf courthe lots which the petitioner proposes to
to
commit from time to time to open space usedghrouehoutkthetentirerl94 so as acres make
possible unbroken trails and paths running 9
specific
ng
We have reviewed the reports referred to efrom the and it �data rsubmitted that
based on these reports and on our own observationsreservation of open space for con -
proposed plan in superior in these respects (p
servation and recreation) to a conventional one. lens and
We have examined the c°Clear Weanotefor
tbethe
ratherparcel
steepwell
declinethe
ofpthe land in
profiles for Oak Harbour thted nature e
plateau in the cente
the northeast corner and
vand from ely athe opinions fand econclusions set forth
We conclude from then ace village plan for this tract
in the foregoing reports that hetproposehan dd open
aspace vtional single family sub -
is superior and more appropriate
division with respect to utilization of natural features of the land• act could
We note that whereas a conventional subdivision scheme for this traced open
require as much as calls running 6e165 feett of bofvision street. Wetso the observepthat thny e
space village plan calls for only ,
proposed plan does not call for
tstreet
sloperincthesnortheastWays or dcorner; this ais a good
across or down the relatively steep
feature as opposed to a conventional subdivision. clustering rouping
he
In respect to utilities, water, sewer or electricfservicelinesa or
of residential structures, no
on extensions are required at all in mansp°°ter°and°more edevelopment; clustering
efficientnetworkofline
of buildings appears to make possible ah
and pipes for essential services.
together with the opinions as set
Our observations and conclusions as above,
ro aced plan
forth in the reports abovece1 underlistedg lSec.ead u18.07s to tis superior he finding tintthese the prespects/to
for development of the par (streets & util't
any plan for single family homes.
of this report with the requirements set fort
We deal on the following pagesrequired categories in
para. 40 of the open space village by -la a osalIn eihfthe
satleastequivalent to a conve
para. 4D, we find that the petitioners prop
tional plan, if not superior. P plan it
In addition, we find that the proposal is su erior to a conventional
the following respects:
-5-
a. The proposed system of walking paths or trails over open space lots and
ion lots
also across some peopleftohtherusualdlayoutroftsidewalks,thatpwould befor
movement of
pro-
vided in a standard subdivision.
b. The proposed form of ownership of the lots to be dedicated from time to
time as open space provides a flexible schemdGe, butlalsorfor;ntenance
alteration
of and orderly control of the use of open space,
from time to time of the recreational uses of the open space to serve the
changing recreational interests and needs of residents as time passes.
c. Some of the recreational need of residents
otherwise require a trip by automobile into
by on --site facilities and in this respect,
superior to a conventional one.
PLIANCE WITH THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRA
of Oak Harbour that might
town or further will be met
the proposed development is
4
The report of Edward E. Kelley states that the subject parcel contains 8,436,
518 square feet of land.
We have examined the plan indicating the portion of the parcel determined by th
Conservation Commission for the Town of Yarmouth to be possibly subject to Wetlands
regulations and we find that it is less than 10% of the whole tract. We find no
other areas within the perimeter
inouropnionwllbe
othe
Fiinsoverall
usedevelopment
primarplan
servicir
which
is designated for use or whi
residents of the development. We therefore find that the applicable land area under
Par. 4,A,2 of Sec. 18.07 is the same as the total area of the pa
Assuming that all of the dwelling units requested by the petitioner will be
contained in multi -family dwellings (a condition of grant of this permit), and
ss of
since the total applicable land area is in excea. acgel'e of Sec. 181.at e
07 is
incentive factor applicable to this project under Para. 4, ,
two.
We have applied the above incentive factor and applicable land area to the
formula set forth in para. 41A,2 for the RD--2 zoning district and we conclude that
the petitioners calculations for the maximum number of dwelling units that could
be constructed on the site is correct, this number being 844.
The notes attached to the petitioners overall development plan state that
particular locations of busing or arings own on rangementeoprlan are layout oftintended to fix
buildings or structures;
absolutely the eventual siting
therefore, although our examination of this plan and also the plans submitted y
the petitioner showing "buffer zones" (perimeter setbacks) and Control ]fines
(internal setbacks) discloses nnnotnce met,nwewhich
imposeany
asfatconditionhe iofaourregu-
lations set forth in para. 4,Care
of this permit the condition vhsionsall
ofupadrang�+,Csexceptutolthe}extent thaton the vthisus
lots must comply with the pro
Board now or later shall permit departure from such regulations by variance.
-6-
1. PARKING, as required by Para. 4,D, of Sec. 18.07
s no
Our examination of the overall
development
numberplan
dwellingeunits7requestedhfor
sufficient parking spaces for themaximum
each residential lot are not ofr�heded°too°we small}or too nearinstances
streetwhere
orslotelinec
are, according to the scale plan,
However, the petitioner states in the notes attached to the plan that the areas
depicted on the plan as parking spaces are not intended to fix the siting ofthis
parking areas as ultimately constru�eveiotrrofore, we adequateonumbeors ofrparkinggrant ospaces .
special permit on provision by the Pe
of proper size and setback for the numbers of dwelling units to be constructed from
time t3o time on each residential lot.
2. DISRUPTION OF ESTABLISHED NEIGH80RHOODS, as required by pars. 4,D of Sec. 18.07
Requirement #i2 specifies that there shall be mini
thanmal disisruptifamilyon of dwelestabingsed
neighborhoods, evidence by (there being)
not at the time of application within 500 feet of any proposed multi —family (or
attached single family) structure.
e only 8 dwellings within this distance.
To the Board's knowledge, there ar
we find that under the test set forth for
Since this number is less than 30,
requirement 2,
the proposed development will cause minimal disruption of the
functioning of established neighborhoods.
We note from the petitioners plan showing buffer zones that for the most parts
the developer is providing a 70' buffer strip around the edge of the entire
arel,
50' would meet the bb—law requirement; in our judgement
even though in most places,
hborhooc
this extra —width separation strip will further protect the surrounding neig
3. SAFE ACCESS, as required by Para. 4,D of Sec. 18.07.
This requirement is tested by determining whether access is from a major artei
street, one of which is Route 6A, without use
fminor
sstreto ets
exiensivelte for develop'
and
for single family houses and (providing)adequate
vice equipment.
Primary access to Oak Harbour will be over the frontage of Route 6A.
ead
Oak
The overall development plan shows that
sev toainspara. s2dabovenandttheecovena
Harbour boundary. The 70' buffer zone referred the
between developer and the Yarmouth PlpermitBoard t connection
theheffectuthatisi
of the parcel (on which this special p q
barriers of bushes or trees will be planted at the ends of theseexisting turn aroare sufficient sure
cient to
that traffic will not pass beyond the unds,
assure there will be no connections between roadways in Oak Harbour and abutting
subdivisions.
We find that all of the tests for
satisfaction
0ak Harbour.
requirement3 have been me,
and therefore that there will be safe aecess
-7-
4.' Apf.QUATE UTILITY SERVICE, as Required by Paragraph 4-D of Sec. 18:07
Subparagraph 4 specified that satisfaction of this requirement shall be evidence
of availability of a public water supply, adequate drainage, and at the location of
the sewage treatment system, soils having certain characteristics.
These three criteria are specifically covered by the Petitioner's draft Environ-
mental Impact Report. Beyond this, approval from the Mass. Dept. of Public Health
will be required for the final sewage treatment plan, no more than one or possibly
two residential clusters or phases could be constructed.
We note too with respect to the adequacy of the petitioner's system for surface
water drainage that extensive survey and engineering work was done in the course of
preparation of the petitioner's plans and profiles for Oak Harbour Circle as submitted
to the Planning Board.
Based on all of the above, we conclude that the three criteria are satisfied and
therefore that the petitioner's Open Space Village Development will provide adequate
utility service.
5. AVOIDANCE OF ECOLOGICAL DISRUPTION, as Required by Paragraph 4-D of Sec. 18:07
A two-part test is specified for this requirement: whether any proposed building
will be less than 250 feet from any pond over 5 acres, river, ocean, swamp or marsh
and whether site design minimizes topographic change or removal of existing trees and
vegetation.
We have examined the two plans submitted by the petitioner showing proximity of
the locus to wetlands areas (southwest corner only) and to nearby ponds and the salt
creek. No buildings are proposed within 250 feet of the wetland areas, and no pond,
river, ocean, swamp, marsh or salt creek is within 250 feet of the development parcel.
We have kept in mind also the reports of Dr. Teal and Mr. Tseckares and based on the
foregoing observations and conclusions, we find that the proposed open space development
resonably avoids ecological disruption.
5. PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES, as Required by Paragraph 4-D of Sec. 18:07
Three tests are set forth for this requirement:
1. Glare -free illumination of parking areas
We establish as a condition of this Special Permit that all parking areas wherever
located,be illuminated, such illumination to be glare -free.
2. Preservation of water views from public hi hwa s
No water views are available from any public highways in the vicinity of Oak Harbour
this test does not apply.
3. Effective use of topography, landscaping and building placement to maintain
to the de nee feasible the character of the neighborhood
r R_
The petitioner's topographic map clearly indicates that the lots selected
for residential construction and for the community center are in the higher
elevation, plateau area.
The developer's plans indicate they have avoided any appearance of "bull-
dozer"subdivisions; trees and vegetation have been retained to the extend possible;
the petitioner's proposed clustering of buildings with belts of trees surrounding
each cluster will give Oak Harbor an appearance in keeping with the neighboring
subdivisions.
There are no neighborhood characteristics to match along the north and west
boundaries of the locus because these areas are all undeveloped and are still held
as large tracts.
We find therefore that the pefftioner's use of contours, in sitting its build -
clusters and the retention (or provision) of belts of trees as a permanent landscap-
ing feature will be entirely compatible with and should reinforce the visual
characteristics of the surrounding neighborhoods.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Oak Harbour Development plans will
be in keeping with and will preserve neighborhood amenities.
7. NO MULTI -FAMILY STRUCTURE TO CONTAIN MORE THAN 24 DWELLING UNITS, as required by Para-
graph 4-D of Sec. 18:07
The petition so states, but we make compliance with this requirement a condition of
our grant of this Special Permit in any event.
8. EMERGENCY ACCESS TO EACH BUILDING, as required by Paragraph 4-D of Sec. 18:07
The petitioner's emergency access plan shows that access will be made available to
each multi -family
seeT^'nolreasonThere
pavementindication
eventwhether
longnot
as thethese
pathsapproaches
are capable
be paved ,but we
of supporting fire and emergency service vehicles.
However, because the sitting of buildings may change as the petitioner points out in
the notes attached to the Overall Development Plan, we impose as a condition
ncto our grant
of this Special Permit, that emergency approaches capable of supporting
15 tons shall be provided to each multi -family dwelling as provided in this subparabraph
and shall thereafter be kept free of such obstructions as could block the passage of
these vehicles in any emergency situation.
OPEN SPACE
Paragraph 4-F of the Open Space Village By-law sets forth the requirements for and
the restrictions to be imposed upon the open space areas which are in intregal part of
this type of cluster development. We observe that there are five (5) basic parts to
this paragraph and we will deal with each part.
1. Basic Re uirement for 0 en Space
The first two and the last sentences of the By-law outline the amount and type of
open space that must be provided ith development under Section 18:07 and limit the
�,,,, 1 dines that may be con
The main
is stated that
the applicable
represented by
requirement is contained in the second sentence of the By-law, wherein it
common open space shall comprise not less than thirty (307.) per cent of
land area shown on the development plan. We have added up the land area
the lots on which the Petitioner indicates that dwellings or other struc-
-9-
tures may be placed; we find that the total is less than seventy (707.) per cent of the
applicable land area as set forth in the land surveyor's report. We are satisfied that
the remaining lots (some of which are shown as open lands on the overall development
plan) are capable of meeting this thirty (30%) per cent test.
We make no findings or decision as to the particular lots or the order in which
particular lots may be selected and dedicated by the Petitioner as the required open
space under paragraph 4-F of the By-law. The paragraph clearly limits the lots which
may be used for this purpose to those on which (essentially) no construction is to take
place. This requirement is one of many on -going provisions that will be applicableptvas
the project as it progresses and with which the Developer will have to comply,
excwe may grant exception thereto by variance. Section 18:07 calls for no specific find-
ings or determinations by us on this matter and in our judgement none should be entered.
The Petitioner specifically requests in this case our approval to build Oak Harbour
in successive stages, drawing building pemits from time to time as -the project commences.
In this connection, the Petitioner proposes, as stated in variance request #10, to dedi-
cate prior to the commencement of each stage sufficient open space lots to cause at all
times the completed sections of the project plus the phase or phases under way to comply
with the 30% open space requirement of paragraph 4-F.
The Town needs to be assured that this will take place automatically and that at an.
and all times during development, if for any reason the balance of the project does not
go forward to completion under this special permit, and the remaining lots are placed in
any of the other uses possible under the underlying RD-2 Zoning District, no question
will arise as to whether or not additional open space lots must first be committed to
support the Open Space Village buildings already built.
Since variance #10 acutally deals only with a dimensional requirement under Section
18:07 - 4 -C,we are in doubt as to whether our inclusion in that decision of a condition
or requirement to meet the question at hand would assure the Town of protection in all
events. We therefore impose upon our decision in this case the conditionthat tprior to
the start of construction of any of the multi -family dwellings approved
Special Permit,sufficient lots shall be dedicated as open space to cause the project as
then completed plus the dwelling units then to be commenced to comply with the 30% open
space requirement of paragraph 4-F.
2. Ownership and Maintenance of 0 en Space Areas
Paragraph F requires that ownership of open space areas shall be arranged through
incorporated homeowners association, condominium deeds or other land agreement through
which each first owner (and we assume each subsequent owner) in the development auto-
matically becomes a member. Sand wearesatisfied that
statement
attache
iniumthe
unitoriginal
ta
petition covering these point
be granted each unit owner, together with the ownership of open space areas either by a
land trust as proposed or in the alternative
a basis forvne or more of the membership meetingsthisarequirementndomin1�
will provide a form of ownership and
3. Use and En'o meet of Open space by Residents of the Development
for Conservation and Recreation
The By-law requires that under the above arrangements for ownership of open space
areas, preservation of required open space shall be guaranteed for use and enjoyment
the
of residents of the development, for conservation or for recreational use only, Y
residents and their non-paying guests.
-10-
+ . We have examined closely the statements in this regard made by the Petitioner as
part of its request for this permit, and we note that "deed restrictions limiting the
use for open space purposes will be imposed upon each open space area as it is dedi-
cated to the project..." In our opinion, legal instruments of this description will
guarantee permanent dedication of open space lots for those uses and purposes only
which are set forth in paragraph F, thereby meeting this requirement.
Similarly, we note in the Petitioner's statement that "...rights will be granted
to all unit owners of the project so as to ensure to each of them their rights to use
the open space areas." We conclude that instruments grang exception therefrom from
hts of this kind
will comply with the above requirement except as we may grant
time to time by variance.
4. Maintenance of 0 en S ace Areas
Paragraph F requires that maintence fopen
space
areas
to ashall
charge fopermanently
a share
assured through instruments under which
each lot issubject
of maintenance expenses.
The Petitioner made several statements specifically calling .foreacht a impositiunit ownertn
(we assume in each unit owner's deed) of covenants requiring
pay his determined share of expenses incurred on the maintenance of open space areas..."
In our opinion, these provisions will ensure that the requirements for guaranteed
and permanent maintenance and upkeep of open space areas will be met, except as we may
grant exception therefrom from time to time by variance.
5. Other_Re uirements
Finally, it is required under paragraph F that the town shall be granted an ease-
ment sufficient to ensure perpetual maintenenace of required open space as conservational
and recreational land.
W� note in this connection the Petitioner's statement in the request for this permit
e Tawas of Yarmouth will be imposed on all open
that " restriction running in favor of th
space areas by the terms of which no use inconsistent with the open space concept de-
scribed in this application will be permitted."
Since the application itself is consistent throughout with paragraph F of Section
18:07,we find that the restfortiwhich
establishmentrofropenespacelareastto the for conser-
vation Yarmouth the guarantee permanent
vation and recreational purposes that are required in paragraph F.
Overall,we find that the proposed development meets or will meet the requirements
for open space in Section 18:07, paragraph F.
SUf�fARY OF 5LiBMISSION AND MATERIALS
This special permit is issued under the Yarmouth Zoning By-law, Section 18:07,
commonly known as the Open Space Village
Development
having been.givenThis
andtdue publication
was Put
before the Board on May 15, 1475, proper notice
Cod
having been made pursuant to OeSection
petition'in light3and /of7thenaboveCreferred to
Standard Times, and the Board xamined
by-law and in light of all other requirements by other committees within the Town o
-11-
t not limited to, the Planning Board, the Yarmouth Conservation
Yarmouth, to include, bu
the Yarmouth Engineering Department. The Board
Commission, the Yarmouth Water Department,
examined several sets of plans, as well as documentary evidence presented by the petitioner
and voted on June 17, 1975 to grant to the petitioner a special permit under Section 18:07
of the by-laws for an open space village development, to be located north of Route 6A in
the village of Yarmouth, in Yarmouth, Mass. Oak Harbor, dated Feb. 14, 1975, which plan
was presented to the Yarmouth Planning Board and which plan was approved by said Board,
subject to certain restrictions laid down in a covenant by that Board with the developer -
petitioner, and to which covenant, and of which restrictions this special permit is subject,
in addition to those imposed by this Board.
DECISION
THE SPECIAL PERMIT REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
PROVISIONS:
1. All lots on the above -referred to plan are approved for open space development with
a maximum number of dwelling units on each lot or lots as imposed below, with the exception
of Lot 11, which is presently occupied by the Federal Aviation Administration Contol
Facility, and which lot will remain free from any development, so long as the Federal
Aviation Administration Control Facility exists. However, should the F.A.A. terminate
the control facility and forever release its use of that permises, then Lot 11 may be used
for development of open space village units not to exceed thirty-two dwelling units in
number, provided that the thirty-two units to be built on Lot 11 are made up from units on
one or more of the other lots listed below, so that the aggregate number of units on all lots
shall not exceed 750 units, whether or not Lot 11 is used in the development. The maximum
number of dwelling units designated below for the lots listed shall not be changed without
the prior review and assent of this Board.
Lot Number Maximum number of
dwelling units
38
8A & 35
35
33
52
13
30
14
28
15
37
31
50
16
72
18
32
29
27
28
50
20
52
23
40
24
44
26 & l0A
59
2 & 8
104
21
Total 750
2. Accessory structures
and
andfacilities,
authorizedfollows,
RD-2the
zoningedistrictthat tunderma con-
stitute structures, facilitiesBoard shall
special permit for open space village development, or to the extent that
variance, are include
now or hereafter permit such structures, faciany reuirvities by these structures and facilitiE
in this special permit, without however any qem nt that
Which must be constructed in accordance with paragraph 3, following in order for the projec
to meet the requirements of this permit. Ac1essory structures, facilities and uses are as
follows:
(1) Gatehouse
(2) Sewage treatment plant and facilities
(3) Garden club building
(4) Requisite maintenance facilities, such as tool sheds, but not
limited to tool sheds pro shop,
(5) Community Center complex, containinga clubhouse, p p,
dining room, lounge, kitchen, community hall, health club, ten
guest rooms, post office -village store, which facility
shall be
combined unless the U.S.Government requires otherwise, management
office, sales office, and swimming pool. The foregoing are for
the use of members and guests of the development and are not to be
open to the general public except -as this Board may by
ce
authorize public use of the Clubhouse, Pro shop and village store.
(6) Related accessory features and facilities for the recreation and
enjoyment of residents and guests of the development, including
tennis courts, walking and bicycle paths, gardens, outdoor cooking
areas, rain shelters, ball fields, a golf course and a look -out
platform.
of unit owners,
(7) Garage and
storagds andegaragessheds fsor e
ballnot cexceedt83nstructures. which
storage
3. In order to facilitate proper development, this project may be constructed
its under in
successive stages. The developer may apply for and obtain building pm
special permit from time to time for each stage or phase of the project, prior to the
commencement of each stage or phase, conditional upon the following:
(1) No proposed building for residential use shall contain less than two,
nor more than 24 dwelling units.
(2) The component parts of each residential building shall be limited in
height (height to be measured in accordance with the by-laws for the
Town of Yarmouth): a one-story component - 25 feet; two-story com-
ponent - 35 feet.
(3) Parking areas shall conform to the applicable provisions of the Town
of Yarmouth zoning by-laws. Parking areas may be illuminated for con-
venience of the unit owners, such illumination to be glare -free.
(4) Access for each proposed building for residential use shall be provided
in accordance with the requirements of Section 18:07, sub -paragraph 4,
sub -sub -paragraph E, of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
(5) Emergency access, whether or not paved, shall be provided for in
accordance with the requirements of the Town fire department and the
Town police department, provided that their requirements are governed
by Section 18:07. Sub -paragraph 4, sub -sub paragraph U, sub -sub --sub-
paragraph 8 of the town zoning by-law.
(6) Placement of the residential buildings on the loWmemostnparticularly
ed above all
conform with the requirements of the zoning by-la,section 18:07 , paragraph 4C. Said requirements may be varied by this
Board, provided that a proper petition for a variance is presented and
approved.
-13-
(7) In accordance with Section 18:10-6 of the town by-laws, this Board
shall receive from the petitioner a detailed site plan for such stage
or phase meeting the requirements of that section of the by-laws, which
plan shall be forwarded to the Town Engineering Dept. for review and
report.
(8) Sewage treatment plant facilities must be erected and operating an
functioning in accordance with the provisions of applicable state and
local laws, the phasing of same to commence no later than the time when
75 dwelling units shall be occupied within the open space village dev-
elopment.
(9) The issuance of building permits for accessory structures as have been
authorized by and under the terms of this special permit or by a variance
now or later issued by this Board, shall be subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The ground area and height for each such structure shall not exceed
the following: Maxium
Maximum
I. Community center Complex of inter-
round area height
connected buildings 10,000 sq. ft. 35 ft.
II. Gate house 300 sq. ft. 20 ft.
III. Garden Club building
3,500 sq. ft. 35 ft.
IV. Maintenance Area buildings 25 ft.
(a) open storage building 1,000 sq. ft.
(b) 4 bay open shed type 2,300 sq. ft. 25 ft.
buildings (2) ft. 25 ft.
(c) garage - office 2,300 sq.
600 sq. ft. 15 ft.
(d) bath house
V. Sewage Treatment Plant buildings:
(a) Communitor and flow measurement 400 sq. ft. 25 ft.
building 4,000 sq. ft. 25 ft.
(b) clarifier building 400 sq. ft. 25 ft.
(c) chlorine equipment building 2,500 sq. ft. 25 ft.
(d) polishing filter building ,200 sq. ft. 25 ft.
7
(e) office and laboratory ,800 sq. ft 20 ft.
VI. Garage -Storage Sheds
(b) Siting of accessory buildings shall be in compliance with the town
by-laws Section 18:07 -4- C.
(10) Prior to the construction of any residential buildings, from time to
time, sufficient open space in the form of one or more in whole or part
of lots 3, 6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 12A, 9A, 30, 34, 7, 11A, 4,
and 32, as shown on the above -mentioned plan of February 14,
1975 • and
lots 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 on Land Court Plan No. 35454A at the Barn-
stable Land REgistration Office, shall be dedicated under the provisions
of Section 18:07-4-F of the zoning by-law in order to assure that the
total area of dedicated open space, plus housing lots completed or then
be started, meet the requirements of Section 18:07 -4-C for the number o
dwelling units completed, plus those which are then to be started.
(11) All building permits taken out under the terms of this special permit sf
be applied for within ten years of the expiration of any appeal
this special permit or, in the event an appeal is taken from the date of
expiration of any appeal rights from any Court decision upholding the
decision in whole or in part, provided, however, that the developer may
or appe;
during the last two years of the ten-year period, by letter to,
ance before, this Board, stating the reason therefor, request an extens,
or extensions of this ten-year time limit.
-14-
4. Use of this special permit is subject to the developer's providing a scheme
for ownership of open space lots insuring the use thereof by residents of the develop-
ment and their guests and the maintenance thereof by residents of the development,
except as this Board may now or later vary the requirements, meeting the following
general requirements.
(a) Open space lots shall, following the dedication as such, be owned
by a land trust or in the alternative, by one or more of the separate
condominium organizations.
(b) Following dedication of lots for open space purposes, there shall be
restrictions in the deeds to the same limiting the use thereof to the
open space purposes set forth in Section 18:07--4-F of the town by-laws.
(c) Each condominium unit owner shall be granted rights to use open space
areas in common with other unit owners and their guests.
(d) Covenant obligations shall be imposed on each unit owner requiring
payment of his determined share of expenses necessary for the main-
tenance of open space areas.
The instruments and documents utilized by the developer from time to time to carry out
the foregoing may be altered and varied without approval of this Board, provided that
the effect of the present permit is carried out.
5. This permit is granted subject to the condition that the developer restore by
some type of vegetation all areas disturbed during construction, which areas are not
either structure, walks, roads, parking areas, or formal recreation facilities, such as
ball fields, picnic areas, or golf courses. The foregoing will not apply to areas withir
the sewage treatment area which might be required to be kept open for proper operation
of the treatment plant, nor to the work and storage areas on lot 13A.
6. This decision and the special permit herein granted shall run with the land, be
exercisable by the owners from time to time of the subject parcel, and by the successor:
in title to the present developer. The word "Developer" or "petitioner" used herein
shall be deemed to mean and include the owners of Oak Harbor from time to time and the
successors to the developers, as well as Oak Harbor Associates, the original petitioner
and developer.
Therefore, petitioner's request for approval is granted.
Members of Board voting:
Thomas N. George
Robert Sherman
David Oman
Philip Dempsey
Herbert Renkainen
- voted
in favor
- voted
in favor
- voted
in favor
- voted
in favor
- voted
in favor
No permit issued until 22 days from date of filing the decision with the Town
Clerk.
per Robert W. Sherman
Clerk
4
Filed with Town Clerk:
Petitioner: Oak Harbor Associates
O1%TN Or 1' r'LR'" IDU T }'
BOAR1) OF APPEALS
DECISION
Hearing Date: 5/15/75
Petition No.: 1321
The petitioner requested from this Board, a series of variances from certain section.
of the Yarmouth zoning by-law with respect to a parcel of essentially vacant land on the
north side of Route 6A in Yarmouthport.
The petitioner filed with this Board at the same time and under the same case number
for associated consideration, a request for a special permit for an Open Space Village
Development under Section 18:07 of the zoning by-law to be constructed on the same parcel
This Board voted on June 17, 1975, to approve the petitioner's special permit request and
the record and decision in that case will be filed with the Town Clerk for the Town of
Yarmouth with the record and decision in this case.
Notice of the public hearing required was published in the Cape Cod Standard Times
on April 30,and May 7, 1975. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to parties interest,
including abutters and abutters to abutters pursuant to applicable statutes and by-laws.
The public hearing on the petitioner's request wa;, held at the Yarmouth Town Hall in
South Yarmouth, Massachusetts on May 15, 1975 at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
Members of Board of Appeals present:
Thomas N.George
David Omar,
Robert Sherman
Herbert Renkainen
Philip Dempsey
The petitioner's property consists of approximately 194 acres of vacant land on time
north side of Route 6A in Yarmouth and situated between Route 6A and Bray Farm Road.
The site is bisected north and south by Hockanom Road, known to us to be a dirt trac'
8 feet wide of long standing between Route 6A and Bray Farm Road.
There is located on the property in the southwest section an FAA flight control
installation, the lease for which will expire in 1978.
The property is entirely within the RD-2 zoning district. Until 1973, apartments
were permitted in this district and in 1973, this Board granted to one of the owners a
special permit for multiple family units for 957 families.
At the annual town meeting in 1973, the tok-n amended the zoning by-law, substitut-
ing in place of the apartment section, a new by-law section for Open Space Village Dev..
This new section, as amended slightly by the special town meeting in the fall of 1974,
is the basis for this petitioner's accompanying request to this Board for a special permi
for multiple family units for 750 families.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PETITIO'CER'S REQUESTS:
The petitioner seeks variance relief from the zoning by-laws in order to be per-
r,itted various structures and uses in connection with the proposed Open Space Village
-1-
Development for up to 750 dwelling units in multi -family residential buildings.
The purpose of each variance is to make possible sor.4 particular
structurDevelopme, use or
activity associated with the Petitioner's proposed Open Spa Village
which the related Special Permit petition has been submitted and which we have now
approved. none of the structures or uses reflected in these variance applications repre-
sents a building or an activity designed to stand independent of the basic plan for the
site, that of a cluster -type residential development. In this important sense, all of the
variances have in common their status as accessory requests, and we consider them in 'this
light, although in part, we treat each separately and enter separate decisions for each.
EVIDENCE AND DiATERIALS PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
derson
At the hearing, the
rratiRe°anrandrepresented
toytheAttorney
Board byRichard
Edward.E�Kelley,oRegyannis,
presented a report by Murray g
Land Surveyor.
Mr.Regan's report describes the relationship between the proposed Open Space Village
Development and the variances. In substance, Mr. Regan states that in his opinion the
accessory features requested would be essential in order to make the construction of an
Open Space Village economically feasible.
Mr.Kelley's letter describes the parcel in terms of its terrain and peculiar geo-
graphical characteristics, concluding
ath t for
le fseveral
amily reasons,
the land is suited for a
cluster type development not
An Environmental Impact Report in draft form was presented at the meeting, dealing in
detail and at length with the requirements for an on -site sewage treatment facility.
Dr.John M. Teal, Ecologist, presented a summary report of curtain of his findings,
stating his opinion that the proposed development will contain natural areas separating
it from surrounding developments, further reducing the visual impact of development.
Mr. Kelley, during the hearing and in answer to questions, stated that established
neighborhoods to the southeast should not be affected from a traffic standpoint by the
proposed development, since access intoked. the site over the existing roads which now end at
the edge of the parcel will
he petitioner, stated that neighborhoods to the
Richard Anderson, Esq., representing t
southwest should not be adversely affectethe ordothe& constructionurinthe phase
buildings,because�iockanomnRoad will not
buildings requested uncle
be used by construction equipment.
Finally,the petitioner submitted plans to the meeting, several of which show the
ielding
buffer zones or strips to Buildings provided
maintenancethe
areaperimeter
structurestfromeestablishedhneighbor-
the Sewage Treatment Bu g
s
hoods.
Upon request, we were supplied with additional data showing the relative size and
significance of the facilities to be incorporated into the proposed Community Center
Complex.
-2-
LAND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE OAK HARBOUR PARCEL
Some of the physical conditions applicable to the petitioner's parcel, may be summa-
rized as follows:
1. The parcel is the largest undeveloped tract of vacant land in united private
ownership in the RD-2 zoning district in which it is situated. The district itself is
small and includes the petitioner's parcel, plus some land to the west and more to the
east, all being on the north side of Route 6A. The petitioner's 194 acres constitute
nearly 30% of the whole. In addition, the land in the district to the east of the
petitioner's parcel is already subdivided into single family lots, some of which are
already built upon.
2. The parcel has unique topographic characteristics. The main portion is an up-
land plateau with an average elevation of 85-90 feet. This plateau rises gradually nort)
ward toward the water. It then falls away steeply to Bray Farm Road and sea level. The
highest point in the parcel in fact is the hill (elevation 101 feet) in the northeast
corner about 400 feet from the edge of this slope. Other land in the district has no su
high upland which ascends in the direction of the marsh and water.
3. In the southwest corner of the parcel, there is situated a low, relatively wet
area and also an FAA flight control installation in neither of which areas construction
can presently take place.
4. The street frontage for the parcel is small in relation to its size and peri-
meter. Supplementary access is limited, partly because of the above described topo-
graphic conditions to the southwest, north and northeast, which are also found to to the
northwest just beyond the petitioner's property line where the Town conservation land
slopes steeply to Chase Garden Creek. Access is limited by the existing street network
the area; the Yarmouth Planning Board has conditioned its approval of the petitioner's
subdivision plan on adequate blocking of the stub ends of the three existing streets in
Shaffer development, these being Cromwell Drive, Avon Road and Stratford Lane and on a
connection to Canterberry Road in the same area for emergency access only. Nottingham F
in the northeast corner provides no access to the plateau because it would connect near
foot of the downslope. The only roads crossing the parcel or parallel to it are Hockanc
Road and Bray Farm Road. Access to the west is blocked by reason of the ownership of tt
land in that direction, some of which is in conservation use and ownership, and the bal:
of which is already committed to established recreational and conservation use in the
case of the Rod and Gun Club property. The Oak Harbour parcel is therefore singularly
isolated in terms of its connection possibilities.
5. The parcel is unique in that it is the only piece of land in the RD-2 district
bisected by an ancient way which must be kept open to accommodate the passage of person
entitled to use.
6. The parcel is situated geographically 2,750 yards from Yarmouthport and 2.1 mi
from the Yarmouth Inn, the nearest large restaurant now in existence. The site is 2.2
distant from the nearest public hall, 2.1 miles from the nearest post office and .55 mi
from the nearest convenience store.
We are familiar both with the petitioner's parcel and with the location, topograpr
state of utilization, and form of ownership of neighboring land in the RD-2 zoning dist
-I-
We adopt as our findings the above list of physical characteristics affecting the
Oak Harbour parcel.
We further specifically find that these physical characteristics affecting the
petitioner's parcel do not affect generally the remaining land in this RD-2 zoning
district. No other parcel of vacant land in the district in united ownership is this
large. No other parcel of land in the district has the peculiar topographic features of
the petitioner's tract, namely, a high and relatively level central plateau with dis-
associated low areas on opposite sides separated from the uplands by steep slopes having
elevation differences of approximately 70 feet. No other land in the district has and
is restricted by a Federal Flight Control facility. No other substantial parcel in the .
district is to the best of our knowledge, as separated and isolated physically from
its surroundings or as dependent on a small section of its perimeter for access. Finally
no other parcel is split down the middle by an ancient path such as Hockanom Road.
EFFECT OF LAND CONDITIONS ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL
The land conditions described above which make this parcel unique in the zoning
district have direct bearing on how the land may be developed and used and therefore on
the petitioner's variance request.
We find that the land conditions uniquely applicable to the petitioner's parcel
make necessary the utilization of Yarmouth's Open Space Village by-law provisions.
The configuration of the parcel dictates a development scheme which will hold the
number and length of primary streets to a minimum. The reports to us state, and we
find, that the petitioner's subdivision plan (which is the basis for the petitioner's
applications to us for variance and special permit relief) observes this principle,
whereas a single or two-family subdivision scheme would not.
We conclude, therefore, that in this respect, land conditions applicable to petitio
ner's parcel call for development under the Open Space Village scheme.
By reason of land condition number 4 (isolation of the parcel due to the absence
of secondary road connections), all traffic from the parcel, no matter what type of
development is involved, will of necessity flow south toward and over the parcel's 125
feet of frontage on Route 6A in order to bear east or west on Route 6A. There is no
other access. The lower section of this entrance road, which is the only one possible,
will therefore bear the heaviest volume of traffic into and out of the development. A
standard single family or two-family subdivision would inevitably contain lots fronting
on these lower portions of the main entrance street which would expose dwellings con-
structed thereon to a relatively heavy flow of traffic. On the other hand, development
of the land under Sec. 18:07 will permit these exposed and comparativWlyfbusy
ind tareas
n eai
the entrance to be left open. In this important respect, therefore,
hat the
shape and location of the land dictates a cluster scheme of development of the tract.
In summary, we specifically find that the several land conditions noted above woulc
uniquely aecarcelpunderotheTclusterparcel
treatmentpractical
provisionspurposes
Sec.compel
18:07 of the the
de
vel-
opment
thp
e zoning
opment of the
by-law.
-4-
r
The effect of these findings on each of the structures or uses requested in the
petitioner's variances (giving rise to the petitioner's hardship), and in turn the
impact that each variance if granted will in our judgement have on the intent and
purpose of the zoning by-law and on the character of the neighborhood we now deal with
on a category by category and variance by variance basis:
ORGANIZATION OF MATERIAL
The subject matter of the variances falls within four general categories or groups
as follows:
1. Accessory structures for each residence building.
II. Accessory structures, uses and features appurtenant to the project as a
whole.
III. Non-residential uses.
IV. Structures, facilities and uses which do not (or may not) comply with the
zoning by-law.
The material presented to us at the hearing was organized according to this group-
ing and we utilize the same format for our report.
I. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR EACH RESIDENCE BUILDING - GENERAL INFORMATION
Descri tion of relief re jest: Principally, this request covers 83 garage -storage
sheds to be situated on lots numbered 2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24,
26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 8A and l0A (reference to lot numbers appearing here and elsewhere
in this report are to lots and lot numbers shown on the petitioner's subdivision plan
dated February 14, 1975 and approved by the Planning Board for the Town of Yarmouth on
March 19, 1975) for use of residents of the dwellings to be constructed on these lots
and to be sited with respect to such dwellings approximately as shown on the plan
attached to the variance request, which plan is entitled, "Typical cluster, Oak Harb-
our." Final siting and placement of these garage -storage sheds will be shown on the si
plans to be submitted under Sections 18:07-4-E and 18:10-6-B prior to the commencement
of each cluster.
This variance also covers typical residential accessory facilities such as patios,
decks, fireplaces, canopies, unenclosed outdoor structures such as gazebos, refuse
receptacles and bird houses.
The variance also covers those accessory uses permitted under Sec. 18:02, paragrap
8 and 9, of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
Reason Requested: This variance is requested because there is no provision in Sec. 18:
of the zoning by-law for structures or uses accessory to the multi -family dwellings
specifically permitted by special permit under paragraph 4D of said Sec. General
accessory structures and uses are set forth in Sec. 18:02 of the by-law, but only with
respect to structures and uses permitted thereunder; under Sec. 18:02 (applicable to tl
RD-2 zoning district), residential buildings are limited to those for one or two famili
Variance #1 Specific Findings (Dwelling Accessories Variance)
The reports to us at the hearing state that an open space village without basic
accessories and facilities such as garage -storage sheds would make little sense. Basec
on these reports and on our own experience, we conclude that the facilities requested
in this variance are a practical necessity.
These accessory and appurtenant facilities are not clearly permitted under Sec.
18:02 and 18:07 of the by-law. We do not believe this is intended and conclude that
-5-
ral
the omission of common accessory facilities was inadvertent, but under a liteur judgement
interpretation of the by-law, these facilities may be excluded which in since the b law
imposes a significant hardship on the petitioner not of its own making by -
amendment substituting Sec. 18:07 for the earlier apartment by-law
a e afterthe petitioner
petitioners acquisition of the site and in fact after our 1973 grant
of a special permit under the (prior) apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner'
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforce-
ment of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development
of customary and necessary accessory facilities would involve substantial hardship to
the petitioner.
ard facililies requested in this var�akcarboure can eogro�ted
The garages and outside y
without any adverse effect either on the neighborhood surrounding
townspeople in genewellinbecause
situatedthese
nearbyrequested
thestructures
neighborhooduSeWeare
noteall
thatmthe on to
the single family dwellings Rout bA between
dominant character, from a land use point of view, of the area along
Yarmouthport and the Dennis Town line is residential; none of the requested accessory
structures is in any way inconsistent with this pattern of development.
We find therefore that the requested variance may be granted
ewithoufromthet substantial
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any
measurpurpose of the Yarmouth zoning by'
DECISION
Upon the affirmative and unanimous vote of the Board on June 17, 1975, a variance
was granted in all respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #1.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, USES AND FEATURES APPURTENANT TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE -
GENERAL INFORMATION
Description of relief requested: These variances cover:
The proposed Community Complex on Lot 4 and use thereof.
The proposed sewage treatment plant on Lot 9 and proposed sewage treatment
facilities, an office, laboratories and parking and vehicle storage areas on Lots 1,
3, 6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 30 and 34 as shown on the plan accompanying variance
request #4,which plan is entitled "lots for sewage treatment plant and related facilitie
and use of the same.
The proposed maintenance buildings and facilities on Lot 13A and use ti�ereof.
proposed Gate House structure partly on Lot 12A and partly within the right
The pro p
of way of Oak Harbour Circle.
The proposed Garden Club building on Lot 11A, and use thereof.
General landscape accessory facilities throughout the development.
Open space recreation facilities such as tennis courts and paddle courts on Lots
5, 17, 22, 11A and 32.
uch as markers, benches, drinking foutains, wash
General golf course accessories s
racks and rain shelters on any golf ririecourse which may be constructed.
A replacement shrub and tree nursery, and 3 signs at the entrance.
-A-
N.
Reason Requested: These variances are requested because there is no provision in Sec.
18:07 of the zoning by-law for structures or uses accessory to the multi -family
dwellings specifically permitted by special permit under Paragraph 4D of said Section.
General accessory structures and uses are set forth in Sec. 18:02 of the by-law, but
only with respect to structures and uses permitted thereunder; under Sec. 18:02
(applicable to the RD-2 zoning district), residential buildings are limited to those
for one or two families.
VARIANCE #2 (i - iv) Specific Findings (Community Center Variance)
The reports to us at the hearing included statements that an open space village
without central community facilities of the type proposed would be unfeasible and
economically unsound. We agree and find therefore that a Community Center containing
the kinds of facilities referred to in the petitioner's request is a practical necessit
for a cluster type of development.
In our judgement, the facilities proposed to be included in the petitioner's
community center, subject to the floor -area limitations for each facility, are reasonat
and typical of those in similar centers. We conclude further that the proposed center'
primary function and purpose is in support of and therefore accessory to the clustered
dwellings permitted under the by-law.
These accessory and appurtenant facilities are not clearly permitted under Sec.
18:20 and 18:07 of the by-law. We do not believe this was intended and conclude that t1
omission of common accessory facilities was inadvertent, but under a literal inter-
pretation of the by-law, these facilities may be excluded which in our judgement,
imposes a significant hardship on the petitioner not of its own making since the by -lac
amendment substituting Sec. 18:07 for the earlier apartment by-law came after the pet-
itioner's acquisition of the site and in fact after our 1973 grant to the petitioner
of a special permit under the (prior) apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the
petitioner's parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a
literal enforcement of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the propose
development of accessory buildings and facilities in the form of the community center
complex requested in this variance would involve substantial hardship to the petitione
The requested structures and uses will have no adverse effects either on the
immediate neighborhood or on the town as a whole,
None will be visible from the nearest public highway (Route 6A).
All of the structures and facilities requested in this variance, except as any
golf course, the pro shop and club house may under the provisions of variance 03 be
used by non-residents and except as the post -office store may be patronized by persons
other than residents and guests of the development as set forth in variance #2 (v)t
will exist to complement the residential character of the development.
The outdoor facilities included within this category, being the swimming pool anc
parking for the swimming pool, are consistent with residential activity-
-7-
All structures and parking facilities requested in this variance will be located
on Lot 4 in the center of the development, thereby ensuring privacy to abutting
neighbors.
Finally, no secondary streets existing primarily to serve neighboring homeowners
will be open to or used by residents of Oak Harbour in connection with the Community
Center.
The requested community complex is furthermore consistent with the underlying
(RD-2) zoning for the parcel and the area in that the complex makes more viable, certair
and secure the proposed Open Space Village which when constructed will not only commit
solidly to residential use the 194 acre parcel of vacant land which is directly involves
but will in our opinion, influence future development of nearby vacant land for
residence use which is the objective of the existing zoning pattern for the locale.
We find therefore that the requested variance #2 (i-iv) may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the
intent and purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
By a unanimous affirmative vote, a variance was granted on the 17th day of
June, 1975 in all respects and particulars as requested in parts i through iv of
variance request #2, provided that the floor area in the community center for each
facility requested to be included therein shall be no greater than the following:
a) Club House and Pro Shop (consisting of men's and women's lockers, storage
space and the shop itself) 3,000 sq. ft.
b) Dining room, lounge and kitchen (including a coat room, dining room seating
a maximum of 80 persons, wash rooms for men and women, food lockers, bar,
and miscellaneous storage, but not including the connected outside deck),
3,000 sq. ft.
c) Community hall (basically a multi -purpose room with entry, coat room, men's
and women's rest rooms, area for final preparation of food and storage area),
4,000 sq. ft.
d) Health facilities (consisting of men's and women's exercise, sauna and athletic
rooms, either with showers or utilizing those included in the pro shop and
club house group above), 3,000 sq. ft.
e) Ten rooms for guests of residents (each having a separate bath and including
common hall), 4,000 sq. ft.
f) Combined post office -convenience store, 2,000 sq. ft.
g) Rooms for crafts such as wood working, art, ceramics, 2,500 sq. ft.
h) Museum - Art Gallery, 500 sq. ft.
i j) Offices (including management and sales offices, developer sales office,
and space for storage of records and supplies), 3,000 sq. ft.
k) Swimming pool dressing rooms (included in the pro shop, club house group
above)
1) Recreation and game rooms, 600 sq. ft.
-8-
VARIANCE #4 - 5 ecific Findin s (Sewage Treatment Variance)
The draft Environmental Impact Report clearly sets forth the basic requirements for
disposition of sewage for a project of this size. According to Mr. Regan's report,
State
tment
and Local Public Health approval
could
thisnot
varianceure�ewithout
the facilitiesarequestedninand
facilities of the kind requested in
this variance to be absolutely essential for the project and wholly accessory in purpose
and function of the primary use of the parcel for dwellings.
These necessary and appurtenant sewage treatment facilities are not clearly permitted
under Sec. 18:02 and 18:07 of the by-law. We do not believe this was intended
nder a and conclude
that the omission of common
these f'acilitiesemayabelexcludedi,twhich in our judgement
interpretation of the by-law, since the by-law
imposes a significant hardship on the petitioner not of its own making,
y-
ter the
amendment substituting Sec. 18:07 for the earlier apartment by-law
tocame aftitionerpofia-
ioner's acquisition of the site and in fact after our 1973 grant
special permit under the apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner's
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement
of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development of
necessary accessory facilities would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
The requested structures and uses will have no adverse effects on neighbors or on
townspeople.
None will be visible from the nearest public highway (Route bA).
All of the structures requested in this category will exist to complement the
residential character of the development.
The operation of the sewage treatment plant will not intrude upon the privacy of or
be noticeable by even the nearest neighbors.
Finally, all structures and parking facilities requested in this category will be
located at least 50 feet from hperimeter
i etermof the development, thereby securing added
privacy to abutters and t residents
h.
The request is in addition consistent with zoning in the area inasmuch as it confirms
and reinforces the commitment of a substantial tract of vacant land in a residence zone
to residential use in the manner contemplated by Sec. 18:07 of the zoning by-law.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #4 may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent and
purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the affirmative and unanimous vote of the Board on June 17, 1975, a variance was
granted in all respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request W4.
-9-
I
VARIANCE #5 - (Maintenance Area Variance)
We recognize from personal experience and observation the need for garages, shops
and maintenance buildings and facilities if a project of this size is to be properly
cared for. The reports to us at the hearing confirm this observation.
We find that on -site maintenance facilities are a practical necessity for a community
of up to 750 dwellings and in our judgement, the facilities proposed in variance #5 are
reasonable in terms of the size of the project.
We find that these requested maintenance and storage buildings and facilities have
as their sole purpose the servicing and support of the dominant activity proposed for the
parcel which is residential; as such, we find them to be accessory in character.
These necessary accessory and appurtenant facilities are not clearly permitted under
Section 18:02 and 18:07 of the by-law. We do not believe this was intended and conclude
that the omission of common accessory facilities was inadvertent, but under a literal
interpretation of the by-law, these facilities may be excluded which in our judgement
imposes a significant hardship on the petitioner not of its own making since the by-law
amendment substituting Section 18:07 for the earlier apartment by-law came after the
petitioner's acquisition of the site and in fact after our 1973 grant to the petitioner
for a special permit under the apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting this petitioner'!
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 District, a literal enforcement
of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development of these
necessary accessory facilities would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
The requested structures and uses will have no adverse effects on the neighborhood
or the Town. The maintenance buildings, to the extent visible from Route 6A, will Be far
as appearance is concerned, comply with and be approved under the Old Kings Highway Region,
Historic District Act.
All of the structures requested in this category will exist to complement the resi-
dential character of the development.
Finally, all structures and parking facilities requested in this category will be
located at least 50 feet from the perimeter of the development, thereby securing added
privacy to abutting neighbors and to townspeople travelling on Route 6A or using the
Town -owned land on the west side of the Oak Harbour parcel.
The request is, in addition, consistent with zoning in the area inasmuch as it sakes
possible the commitment of a substantial tract of vacant land in a residence zone to
residential use in the manner contemplated by Section 18:07 of the zoning by-law, and
we find therefore that it may be granted without substantial detriment to the publie good
and without derogating from the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.
DECISION
After a unanimous affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted on the 17th
day of 3une,1975 in all respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request l3,
provided that the buildings listed in paragraphs 1, 11 and Ill of said request shall sot
be commenced until approval of the exterior architectural features thereof has been secure]
from the Yarmouth Historic District Commission pursuant to the Old King's Highway Wonal
Historic District Act.
-10-
VARIANCE #6 - Specific Findings (Gate House - Variance )
We take note of the increasing interest on the part of people everywhere to be
secure in their homes. In addition, there was testimony at the hearing to the effect
that condominium buyers are increasingly concerned about the security features of their
prospective residence.
We find that the concerns of future residents of Oak Harbour coupled with the
obvious suitability of the proposed road scheme for a security control point at the fork
in Oak Harbour Circle, together call for the inclusion of a gate house at the point indic,
in variance #6. We find that the proposed structure and its location are reasonable in
terms of the function of any such control facility, and we find that the structure and it:
proposed use are wholly accessory to the residence character of the development.
This accessory facility is not clearly permitted under Section 18:02 and 18:07 of
the by-law. We do not believe this was intended and conclude that the omission of common
accessory facilities was inadvertent; however, the gatehouse may constitute an excluded
structure, which in our judgement imposes a significant hardship on the petitioner's not
of its own making, since the by-law amendment substituting Section 18:07 for the earlier
apartment by-law came after the petitioner's acquisition of the site and in fact after
our 1973 grant to the petitioner of a special permit under the apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner'f
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 District, a literal enforcement
of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development of a
practical and desirable accessory feature would involve substantial hardship to the
petitioner.
The proposed gate house will not be visible from Route 6A. Situated, as indicated,
at the fork in Oak Harbour Circle, it will be too small a structure to affect the view of
neighbors who may be able to see it. Since it will involve only traffic entering and
leaving Oak Harbour, the normal travel in the area by townspeople and neighbors will be
totally unaffected.
The request is in addition consistent with zoning in the area inasmuch as it provides
a facility which supports the commitment of a substantial tract of vacant land in a
residence zone to residential use in the manner contemplated by Section 18:07 of the
zoning by-law.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #6 may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent and
purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted for a Gate House in
all respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #6, except with respect to
the location of the same, (as to which, see the second decision in Group IV following),
on the 17th day of June, 1975.
VARIANCE 47 - (Garden Club Variance)
Our observations and findings with respect to the Community Center requests in
Variance 02 apply with the same force to this variance.
We find a garden club building and the facilities to be included in it to be within
the type of common facilities expected by future purchasers of dwellings in a cluster
development such as Oak Harbour and therefore necessary as part of the overall group of
support structures.
We find the proposed building reasonable in size and judge it to be accessory in
function to the dominant residence character and purpose of the development.
facility not clepermitted
underunder
Section
interpO2 anretationgof7these
the
As an accessory
by-law, the garden club building may therefore
sections constitute an excluded ofitsownmaking since
dstructure,
our
thedgeent imposes bymlaw amendment substituting
hardship on the petitioner no
section 1807 for the earlier apartment by-law came after the petitioner's acquisition o
the site and in fact after our 1973 grant to the petitioner of a special permit under
the apartment by-law.
In summary,
we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner's summary,
ing generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement this
parcel but not affect
of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development of this
wholly accessory facility would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
d use will have no eeffects on e
general neigh -
The requested structure anpublichighway(RoutebA). It exists
borhood. 1t will not be visible from the nearest
to complement the residential character of the development.
The building and parking facilities
requested
will 'not encroachvariance will be luponethen
Lot 11A toward the center of the development
privacy of the neighbors or residents of Yarmouth.
in s it con-
The request is in addition consistent with
zontia1ntracttof vacanthe area nlandcinaa residence
firms and reinforces the commitment
zone to residential use in the manner contemplated by Section 18:07 of the zoning by-tial
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #7 may be granted without substan
derogating in any measure from the intent and
detriment to the public good and without
purpose of the 'Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this'Board, a variance was granted in all
respects and particulars as requested in Variance
ri a cesReques P7 o thein7thedlav of June,
19
with specific authorization for the inclusion
referred to in said request.
VARIANCE #$ -S ecific Findin s (Landscape Facilities Variance)
such as fences,
ctional
The general landscape facilities and features, features replacement
signs, fireplaces, rain shelters, tennis courts and even an area for growing accessory
rep
trees and shrubs, represented co�onrtance all118esidentialour
areasjudgement
that we do notyhesitate to
in function and so usual and
declare them to be necessary in one form or another in a project which could include 75
families.
In our opinion, the expectation on the part of any future purchaser at Oak Harbour
that these kinds of everyday amenities will be included will inevitabley be so high
ig as
to make out an automatic case of hardship in any situation where, as here, the applicab
zoning by-law does not permit them. We believe that such omission was inintended and i
vertent in any event.
making, since the by-law amendment
This hardship was not of the petitioners own
substituting section 18:07 for the earlier apartment by-law came after the petitioner's
-12-
acquisition of the site and in fact after our 1973 grant to the petitioner of a special
permit under the apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner
parcel, but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcemei
of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development of cus-
tomary and necessary aceessory facilities would involve substantial hardship to the
petitioner.
The requested structures and facilities will have no adverse effects on the Town or
the neighborhood. None will be visible from the nearest public highway (Route 6A).
Except as any golf course may under the provisions of variance #3 be used by non-resident
all of the structures and facilities requested in this variance will exist to serve the
residents of the development. All such facilities are consistent with residential
activity and are commonly found in residential areas.
All structures and facilities requested in this variance will be located at least
50 feet from the perimeter of the development thereby securing privacy to abutting neigh-
bors. None of these facilities, except for the lookout platform and possibly golf course
flags or tennis court enclosures or baseball back stops which may be situated near the
perimeter, should be visible at all to neighbors or residents of the Town.
The request is in addition, consistent with zoning in the area inasmuch as it provic
facilities which support the commitment of a substantial tract of vacant land in a
residence zone to residential use in accordance with the scheme and purpose of the zoninj
by-law.
We find therefore that the requested variance #8 may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent and
purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous, affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted in all
respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #8 on the 17th day of June, 19,
VARIANCE #12 - Specific Findings (Signs Variance)
Our comments with respect to the effect of the zoning by-law's failure to provide fc
the amenities requested in Variance #8 apply equally to the signs requested in this varis
We find that the size and type of the permanent sign and the two "for sale" signs,
their proposed locations, are reasonable in terms of the overall project and are clearly
necessary accessories to the open space village.
In our judgement, hardship to the petitioner is clear and evident to the extent that
the by-law does not permit construction of accessories facilities which are obvious and
necessary for the permitted primary use.
In our judgement, this hardship is significant and not of the petitioner's own makir
since the by-law amendment substituting Section 18:07 for the earlier apartment by-law
came after the petitioner's acquisition of the site and in fact after our 1973 grant to
the petitioner of a special permit under the apartment by-law.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner'
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement
-13-
of the by-law insofar as it might prevent inclusion in the proposed development of
necessary accessory signs would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
Although the requested signs will be visible from Route 6A, that being their purpose,
they are not in our judgement in any way offensive. 'Their design and appearance will be
subject to Historic District Commission Approval. The signs are not be be illuminated exce
by glare -free, detached lights. We are familiar with the activities and uses, residenudetial
and otherwise, presently in existence along this section of Route 6A;
we the requested signs will not be injurious to or out of keeping with the neighboring area.
The request is in addition consistent with zoning in the area, inasmuch as it is both
necessary for and accessory to a substantial residential use of land in a residence zone
in the manner contemplated by the zoning by-law.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #12 may be granted without sub-
stantial detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the inten-
and purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous, affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted as
condition
requested in lare-free flood12, cortspotelights, on the tl7thday illumination, of June, 1975.
be provided byy gRequest
III. NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
Description of relief requested: These variances cover space and facilities for sale
of dwelling units by the developer in the form of a developer sales office in the com-
urposes with provision for a resident
munity center complex and a model unit for display p
sales agent. (Numbers 2(v) and 14).
These variances also cover the operation of the post office -store in the community
center complex with the limitation that sales be made only to residents and guests
(Number 2(v))-
Finally,there is included in this category the request for authorization to extend
use of the golf course and golf course accessory facilities, if constructed, together with
the club house and pro shop, to the public on a greens fee charge or other monthly or
seasonal charge basis during the first eight years of the project, or until the 750 units
of housing have been completed and occupied, whichever occurs first (numbers 2(v) and 3(1)
Reason Requested: These variances are requested because there is no provision either
in the RD2 zoning district or within Section 18:07 of the zoning by-law for activities
or facilities having business characteristics.
We note specifically that the on -premises sales office for developer sales and the
use of a model unit could be classified in a development this large as activities necessai
for the contemplated transfer of the dwelling units to individual owners, and hence, as
accessory uses to be dealt with in Group II. However, inasmuch as the proposed sales
activity will not occur on the site of the particular unit offered for sale, or even with3
the cluster being sold, but instead in separate buildings, these activities seem to have
at least in part the attributes of a business use and for this reason only are imzluded it
this category.
VARIANCE #2(v) - Clubhouse -Pro Shop,Villa a Store and Develo er 5ales Office Variance
Since the impact of these land conditions on the requested use of the clubhouse and
-14-
pro shop within the community center would be the same as on the requested use of the
golf course itself, we refer to our decision (following) for variance #3 M for the
details of our findings on impact and hardship with respect to the use of the clubhouse
and pro shop by non-residents.
We find the proposed use reasonable and we find it necessary in support of the basis
residential purpose of the Oak Harbour development.
To the extent that such use is not permitted under Section 18:02 or 18:07 of the
zoning by-law either as an accessory use or as a limited business use, it is our conclus:
that the petitioner is exposed to significant hardship; such hardship is in our judgement
not self-created by the petitioner, for it exists only in connection with the petitioner
efforts to utilize Section 18:07 of the by-law for the purposes for which the section
obviously was created.
With respect to the request in this variance for a sales office for use by the
developer while construction is proceeding and while sales of units by the developer,
referred to as developer sales, are taking place, we note that in other developments of
this type known to us in our area of Cape Cod, sales activities are f oc used other than or
and in the particular unit to be sold. In our judgement, the petitioner both needs and i
entitled to maintain and use an office located in the central complex for interviews, diE
cussions, and negotiations with prospects and for other related sales activity. The
petitioner as we see it is entitled to conduct its sales and promotion activity in a
professional manner.
In our judgement, the space proposed for such developer sales activity in the comm-
unity center is reasonable. We conclude further that the sole function and purpose of
the requested use is to effect an orderly transfer of ownership of the proposed dwelling
units permitted under the by-law, which, in our judgement, defines the use as one which
is accessory.
There is no provision either in Section 18:02 or 18:07 of the by-law for a sales
office of this kind, either as an accessory use or as a limited business activity which
in our judgement imposes a significant hardship on the petitioner, which hardship is not
self-imposed by the petitioner.
With respect to the requested use and operation of a store in the community center
in combination with a post office, to be patronized by persons other than those identifie
or identifiable as residents or guests of residents, we are convinced that a case has bee
made for the reasonable necessity of the same.
Although no direct evidence or testimony was presented on the question of use of suc
a store by persons other than residents or guests of residents, we find on the basis of
personal observation and experience that any requirement that patrons identify themselves
would be cumbersome and unworkable and would require a system for identification that
could not be justified by the small facility requested.
We find therefore that the proposed limited use of the village store (and post offic
by others is both necessary and substantially in support of the primary residential
function of Oak Harbour and that the inability of the petitioner to provide the same unde
Sections 1802 or 18:07 of the by-law either as an accessory use or as a limited business
use constitutes significant hardship not of the petitioner's own making.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner';
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, literal enforcement
of the zoning by-law insofar as it may prevent the uses requested in variance #2(v) would
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
-15-
The requested use of the clubhouse and pro shop by non --residents during the con-
struction phase will in our judgement result in no higher level of use of these facilities
in connection with a golf course, if constructed, than will be the case after the developmo
is complete and the golf course reverts to use solely by resident members and guests. As
such, the variance should have no impact at all on the surrounding neighborhood. As long
as all of the parking facilities for the community center are provided at the let outset, no
traffic or parking problems are to be anticipated within the development,
on Route 6A. No congestion or parking should occur on Route 6A since there will be no entr
to the development and therefore to the golf course except via Oak Harbour Circle. We
conclude that neither neighbors nor townspeople will be affected in any way by this
requested use.
The conducting of developer sales within the community center is designed to reduce
the evidence and impact of the necessary selling activities so far as residents of the
development are concerned. The office will not be a separate structure, but part of the
community usecenter
should
ha ld ha will
noneffectewhatever onhe ance of a the Town orsthesneighborhoodurpose randng. The
shou d,
requested use sh
in fact, be totally unnoticed.
Operation of the post office -convenience store without the requirement that patrons
identify themselves as residents should have minimal impact on the Yarmouth Community for
at least three reasons. First, the post office -store will be situated within the Communit
Center, which in turn is to be located on Lot 4 in the middle of the development. Second,
this variance will be made conditional upon total avoidance of any advertising of the
store outside of the Oak Harbour community itself. Third, the existence of the store will
tend to reduce vehicle traffic on Route 6A.
With respect to the effect of this variance on the overall zoning purpose and scheme.
we find first that to the extent that all of the activities requested in Variance 2(v),
although having business attributes, are purely subordinate to and in support of the
basic residential character and purpose of the development, they are consistent with
and not in derogation of the applicable zoning by-laws.
Second, so far as patronage of the store is concerned, we will condition this
variance upon the store being one limited to the sale of conveniences and necessities
and also to its occupying, together with any post office or mail facilities, no more than
2,000 square feet of floor space in the community center. So limited, we are satisfied
that it will not become an overly large market resembling and competing with those situat,
elsewhere in Yarmouth in districts zoned for business, and as such, that the requested us.
will not undercut in any measurable degree the zoning by-law.
Third, developer sales activity in the community center will end under this variance
following completion of the project and sale of all units. So limited, we find that such
accessory activity, no different in kind from that conducted in residential districts
whenever a house is offered for sale, will not diminish the effectiveness of the zoning
by-law.
We find therefore, that the requested variance No. 2(v) may be granted without sub-
stantial detriment to the public good and without derogating substantially from the inten
and purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this Board sitting on this case, a variance
was granted on the 17th day of June, 1975 in all respects and particulars as requested
in Variance Request #2(v), subject to the conditions following:
1. That developer sales activity in the community center continue only during the
-16-
period of initial sales of units by the developer or during construction, which-
ever is longer.
2. That the store referred to in this variance offer only such necessities and con-
venience items as are commonly found in a convenience store.
3. That there be no advertising of the store referred to in this variance outside
of the Oak Harbour Development.
4. That the store referred to in this variance and any related postal or mail
facilities together occupy no more than 2,000 square feet of floor space in the
community center.
5. That all of the parking facilities described for the community tenter in Variance
#2 (111) be completed before the pro shop and clubhouse situated therein are made
available to non-residents of the development.
VARIANCE #3(1)
Market conditions may make it necessary for a golf course to be included at Oak Har-
bour; if so, the burden of carrying its fixed maintenance costs could not, according to
testimony presented, be placed totally on initial owners or the developer.
We find that without provision for the use of the golf course by others in addition
to residents during the development stage, construction of it would be unpractical and
economically unfeasible.
Since both the construction of the golf course itself, save possible for some of the
related facilities, and the eventual use thereof by residents and guests would constitute
a proper recreational use of open space under the Open Space Village by-law, we conclude
that denial to the petitioner of the limited non-resident use needed to bring the golf
course into existence and up to the point of exclusive resident use, as required under a
strict application of the by-law, would be unduly burdensome and would constitute an un-
necessary hardship.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioners
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement
of the by-law insofar as it would prevent a limited use of any golf course facilities by t
publis as requested in Variance #3(i) would involve substantial hardship to the petitic
The requested use of the golf course, club house and pro shop by non-residents durint
the construction phase is designed and requested only to assure the same level of patronal
of the facility during early years as will occur according to plans when the development
is completed. As such, the variance should have no impact at all on the neighborhood,
provided that the parking facilities for the community center are constructed at the same
time as the golf course so that no traffic congestion or parking problems will occur eithe
within the development or on Route 5A. The only entrance to the golf course will be via
Oak Harbour Circle. in addition, the nearest present neighbor to the contemplated site of
golf course is approximately 500 feet from any proposed fairway.
To the extent that the business aspects of the golf course requested in this variance
will be limited in time essentially to the period during which business activity in the
form of construction of the development will be in progress, we find that no significant
departure from the regulatory effect of the by-law will be involved. Second, operation
of a golf course itself is within the provisions of Sec. 18:07 and the additional tempora:
use thereof by non-residents will, therefore, in our judgement, be consistent with the
activities permitted under the by-law in Open Space Villages. Finally, we find that the
purpose of the temporary use requested by this variance is simply to make possible and to
-17-
• support a primary residential use and employment of this residentially zoned land.
We find therefore that the requested Variance V3(i) may be granted without sutstan-
tial detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent
and purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimouse affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted on the 17t:
day of June, 1975 in all respects and particulars as requested in Variacne Request #3(1)
subject only to the condition that all of the parking facilities for the community center
called for in Variance 112 (111) be completed before any use is made of this variance.
VARIANCE #14 - Specific Findings (Model Sales Unit Variance)
We note from personal observation of and acquaintance with other residential dev-
elopments in the area, particularly those offering multi -family dwellings, that sales
activities usually are centered around a so-called model unit, rather than in the parti-
cular unit to be sold. This in our judgement is a sensible approach to a necessary activi
especially from the point of view of occupants of units adjoining the unit being offered
for sale. Traffic on driveways, over walks and through the common halls of dwellings
already partly occupied will be kept to a minimum. The developer will be able on the othe
hand to show a furnished home. The petitioner in our judgement is entitled to -conduct its
sales activities in a professional manner with minimum disruption to owners already in
residence.
We find that the sole function and purpose of the proposed use of a model unit is to
make possible the orderly transfer of the dwellings intended under the zoning by-law for tI
RD-2 district.
There is no provision in Sections 18:02 or 18:07 of the by-law for use or occupancy
of a model unit of this kind, either as an accessory use or as a limited business activity
which in our judgement imposes a significant hardship on petitioner which is not of the
petitioner's own making.
We find therefore, that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner's
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement
of the by-law insofar as it would prevent the maintenance and use of a model sales unit
as requested in this variance would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
The requested use, occupancy and maintenance of a model unit for sales and pro-
motional purposes is designed to reduce the evidence and impact of necessary selling
activity so far as residents of the development are concerned. However, townspeople who
may ride through Oak Harbour will derive similar benefit. Equally important, the building
in which the model unit will be located will not be any different from any other residen-
tial building at Oak Harbour; visually, therefore, the neighborhood will be entirely
unaffected by this variance.
With respect to the impact of the requested variance on the zoning scheme and pattern
for this area in Yarmouth, we find that conduct of sales activity that is clearly necessar
if residential development is to occur, all in one location rather than in each dwelling a;
completed and offered for sale will not affect the purpose of the zoning by-law which was
to commit this area of Yarmouth to residential use. Moreover, the variance is limited in
time and therefore will not permanently suspend the applicable by-law provisions.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #14 may be granted without substantia
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent and
purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
-18-
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted on the 17th
day of June, 1975 in all respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #14 and
for the period specified therein.
IV. STRUCTURES, FACILITIES AND USES WHICH DO NOT (OR MAY NOT) CONPLY WITH THE
ZONING BY-LAW
Description of relief requested: These variances cover:
Use of any golf course and golf course accessory facilities that may be constructed
by residents and their guests on a greens fee or monthly or seasonal charge basis (No. 3(11
Construction of the gate house building on Lot 12A within the front yard area required
under Section 18:07 of the by-law (No. 6).
Placement of fills on the "construction lots" (Lots 1 & 9, 4,2 & 8, 10A, 11, 11A, 13,
13A, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 8A & 35) in excess of 5 feet to
accommodate siting and grading of buildings, facilities and
la dicapingme totas shown on de-
tailed site plans to be submitted to the Board of Appeal
Construction of a dwelling unit on the housing lots at of higher
ratio
of (footnote numbers require
of units to lot area than is permitted in Section rovOded that sufficient open space in thi
8,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit) provided
19, 22, 25, 12,
form of one or more of the future open space lots (Lots 3, 6, 10, 12, 17,
27, 9A,30, 34, 7, 11A, 4, 5, 32) is dedicated as open space prior to commencement of con-
struction on the particular housing lot involved.
Authorization to submit to the Board of Appeals detailed site.plans for each cluster
of dwellings (the overall deveeop�m�nt plan TequestfillustratesHarbour
thefiled
groupingcofndwellingswithin tsub-
petitioner's Related special p
villages which we refer to in this report as clusters or phases) at the time of commenceme
of each cluster rather than at this time as a condition to the grant of the sepcial permit
which is the subject of the related request before this Board.
To allow the developer to limit the use and enjoyment of parts or all of the yard
areas of the housing lots in tdevelopment
residentsthe
constituting lesswthan theers of tentarelresling
idez
units situated thereon or togroups of
population of Oak Harbour.
Reasons Requested:
Variance 3(ii)
The assessment of golf course use charges upon residents who use the golf course, in
the form of greens fees or monthly or seasonal charges, is included as a variance request
erwise
because the golf course, if built, wlbe situad the zoning by-law. Th ehparagraphlinlSectione18:0E
space" requirement of Section 18:07 of
describing open space states that it shall be held for the common use of residents of the
by
of
development with maintenance peYicationyofsthisdspecificationga ch lot to a r
isunclear; to the
maintenenace expenses. The appi
flexible charges related to the amount
would prohibit assessments in the form of to of use,
a variance is requested. Also, to the extent the language migcommonht be sassess ents, varian
limitations upon use of open space by residents who pay
theirrelief is requested.
rse itself
variance relief is not sought here for construct ionof the gexceptolf ufor accessory fc
use of open space for golf course purposes, both being permitted
-19-
• structures thereon which are the subject of Variance No. 8.
Variance 6
The petitioner asserts that the gate house on Lot 12A, in order to be effective, must
be situated near enough to the paved part of Oak Harbour Circle for drivers to converse
with the gate house attendant; as such, the structure will not observe the open space villf
setback requirements (under Section 18:07-4-c, a minimum front yard of thirty feet is
required) and in fact will encroach partly on the right of way of the street itself.
Variance 9
The third variance in this category is requested because Section 18:9-7 of the by-law
specifies that no fills exceeding 5 feet may be made without the approval of the Board
of Selectmen.
Variance 10
The fourth variance in this category deals with one of the two density requirements
for multiple familyofdlotlingsarea.foroeachtSection
dwelling unitonsttr0uctedConeanyres of the there proposed
e
proposed
8,000 square feet
"housing lots." This requirement will not be met.
Variance 11
This variance request that submission of detached site plans not be required for a
cluster or phase until that phase is about to be built is inserted because of ambiguity in
Section 18:10-6 which applies to special permits for open space village developments. To
the extent that this section might be interpreted as preventing the Board of Appeals from
acting upon the petitioner's related special permit petition without detailed site plans
first being prepared and submitted, a variance is requested.
Variance 13
The final variance in this class, seeking permission to limit use of the yard areas
on each housing lot to the residents of dwellings constructed on the lot or to groups of
residents less than the whole, is inserted because Section 18:07-4-F of the open space
village by-law leaves it unclear whether in a subdivided development, the open space to be
held for common use of all residents is that open space needed to meet the 30% requirement
(the first two sentences in Section 1B:07-4-F provide: "all land not designated for roads
dwellings, or other development within the open space village development shall be held fo
common use of the residents of the development. Open space shall be preserved for recrea-
tion or conservation; and shall comprise not less than 30 per cent of the aplie land
area within the development plan.") or includes all land which will have no buildings, roe
or other development on it. To the extent it may be intrepreted to mean the latter, a
variance is requested.
VARIANCE # 3 (ii) - S ecific Findings (Golf Course Assessment Variance)
We find that we should have a concern for prospective buyers who as owners may have
no interest in use of such golf course facilities, and who therefore may object to
assessment of golf course maintenance and operating expenses as common charges. Fairness
would dictate that assessments on owners planning to use the golf course be heavier than
on those not doing so. As a corollary, non -paving residents should not object to some
limitations upon their use of the golf course open space.
-20-
Although the point of this request seems to us to be a narrow one involving house-
keeping matters rather than considerations of land use, nevertheless, we find that the
by-law's apparent prohibition of what seems to us to be a fairer basis for sharing the
charges called for in the open space section of the open space village by-law imposes
an unnecessary burden on the petitioner. Mr. Regan testified briefly at the hearing on
the hardship and we conclude that it would be significant in its impact.
We find that the proposed method for shifting golf course expenses on residents who
use it by monthly or seasonal fees is fair and reasonable.
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner'
parcel, but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforce-
ment of the by-law insofar as it would prevent the petitioner from instituting a system
for use of the golf course facilities by interested residents who pay for the same in the
form of seasonal or monthly charges would represent a substantial hardship to the petitic
We find that this variance should have no effect on neighbors or on the public, for
it involves only the basis on which expenses within the development shall be shared.
To the extent that a recreational use of open space will be confirmed and assured
under the proposed variance on a maintenance basis fairer to residents who do not wish tc
use it,the purpose of the open space village by-law will be served.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #3 (ii) may be granted without sub-
stantial detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the inte
and purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted in all
respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #3(ii), this 17th day of
June, 1975.
VARIANCE fib - Specific Findings (Gatehouse Location Variance)
Reference is made to the fourth variance in Group Il for our findings relative to
the necessity of a gate house as an accessory structure.
In our judgement, compliance with the front yard requirements of Section 18:07 of
the by-law so far as the proposed gate house is concerned, would cause it to be set back
so far from Oak Harbour Circle as to be ineffective as a security checkpoint, constitutin
a substantial hardship to the petitioner.
In summary, we find that owing to .physical land conditions affecting the petitioner'
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcemen
of the by-law insofar as it would bar placement of a gate house next to the paved surface
of Oak Harbour Circle would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
The plan submitted with this variance indicates that the gate house will be no close
than 400 feet to any present neighbors. Its operation will not be seen by abutters, nor
will it be seen by the public from Route bA.
We find that the siting of the gate house as requested two feet (or more) from the
paved surface of Oak Harbour Circle will have no impact on the neighborhood or the Town
and will in no way be detrimental to either.
To the extent that the gate house will make it possible for the developer to control
vehicle traffic into the development, residents will receive added security which will
reinforce the residential character of the land which is the intent and purpose both of t
-21-
. . 1 .
open space village by-law and the underlying RD-2 district provisions.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #6 may be granted without substantia
detriment to the public good and without derogating from the intent and purpose of the
Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted with respet
to the siting of the proposed gatehouse in all respects and particulars as requested in
Variance Request #6, this 17th day of June, 1975.
VARIANCE #9 - Specific Findings (Fills Variance)
The open space village section of the by-law under which the petitioner submitted th4
related special permit request requires submission to the Board of Appeals (or Planning
Board) of detailed site plans showing the elevations of structures, ways and adjacent
landscaping. However, there is also a general by --law provision (section 18:09-7) requiring
a permit from the Board of Selectmen for fills exceeding 5 feet.
We find that submission of essentially the same data at the same time to a different
Board for approval of one aspect of the proposed landscaping scheme (e.g., fills in exces!
of 5 feet) imposes an unnecessary burden upon the petitioner.
We find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner's parcel
but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement of the
by-law insofar as it would require the petitioner to secure approval from the Board of
Selectmen of fills shown on plans submitted to this Board would represent substantial hart
ship to the petitioner.
This request, involving the placement of fills on housing lots and on the lots for tY
community center complex, the maintenance area, the sewage treatment plant and the garden
club, concerns almost entirely the interest of the Town in controlling significant
alterations of the landscape. This control will be provided by the Board of Appeals so
that there should be no injury to the neighborhood or to the Town and full compliance witt
purpose of the by-law.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #9 may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent and
purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted in all
respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #9, conditional upon submission
from time to time to this Board of site plans pursuant to and as required under Section
18:07-4-E and 18:10 of the zoning by-law for the construction of buildings in open space
village developments, this 17th day of June, 1975.
VARIANCE #10 - Specific Findings (Variance for Area of Housing Lots)
meat
A literal enforcem of footnote (a) to Section 18:07-4-C (footnote (a) provides:
"lot area designed for multi -family units shall be not less than 8,000 square feet per
dwelling unit.") would in the case of a subdivided parcel such as we are presented with
here require each proposed housing lot to have 8,000 square feet of lot area for each mult
family dwelling without regard to required open space, whereas in an unsubdivided open spE
village, the test would be applied on a parcel wide basis.
In our estimation, as long as the main density requirement in section 18:07-4-A for
rt
multi -family dwellings is met, as here, and as long as the 8,000 square foot requirement
is met overall (housing lots plus opera space considered together), as will be the case
here, the application of footnote (a) in this subdivided parcel works an unnecessary
burden on the petitioner.
In summary, therefore, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the
petitioner's parcel but not affecting generally other land in the Rd-2 district, a litera
enforcement of the by-law insofar as it would require footnote (a) to be met for each
housing lot would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner.
There is a basic density formula for multiple family dwellings in open space village
developments. The formula is set forth in section 18:4-A of the by-law; the formula
together with its application to the petitioner's land was shown in the formula calcu-
lation submitted to us with the petitioner's legal memorandum. The maximum number of
dwelling units permitted under the formula would be 844. Petitioner's request for 750
emits falls well within this upper limit.
Footnote (a) imposes an additional density requirement that operates only in cases
of subdivided open space village parcels and it imposes limits which are more stringent
than the formula test above. In this particular situation, it imposes an ongoing require
ment that each housing lot contain at least 8,000 square feet of land area per dwelling u
Petitioner requests that this requirement be waived by variance, but petitioner
proposes that the intent and purpose of the requirement be met fully by the dedication of
sufficient number of open space lots as each stage proceeds to meet and exceed the 8,000
square foot test.
Since the addition of this proposed condition to the variance will result in full
compliance with the intent of the applicable by-law section on an on -going basis, no
injury whatever will be caused to any abutters or to townspeople or to the Town and the i
tent and purpose of the by-law will be carried out.
We find, therefore, that the requested variance #10 may be granted without substanti
detriment to the public good and without derogating in any measure from the intent and
purpose of the Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
Upon the unanimous affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was granted in all
respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request #10 and subject to the conditic
included therein, on the 17th day of June, 1975.
VARIANCE #11 - Specific Findings (Site Plan belav Variance)
We were told at the hearing that because of changes in market conditions and buyer
demand which are bound to occur over the 8 years of this project, it is essential that a
flexible approach be taken to the design and placement of buildings from stage to stage.
In our estimation, it would be burdensome in the extreme if the petitioner were to be
required, before the first buildings have been started, to prepare and submit for the
whole project the detailed information required under Yarmouth's Site Plan Review by-law
None of the first stage buildings have been designed, lec al-:ne. those for the more dista'
clusters. These by-laws, however, are capable of being interpreted as requiring just
that. In addition to the burden on the petitioner in preparing such plans at this stage
flexibility in placement of later phases would be lost, which could well render the
project unfeasible. More practical in our judgement would be a sequential submission of
site plans for'each Thase'6r"c ustfr prior to application for or issuance of a building
.� « <_.
permit for that phase _or cluster. The Board also feels it would have closer supervision
of the project under the above situation._
y23- a
:�
r
In summary, we find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner's
parcel but not affecting generally other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement
of the by-law insofar as it may be deemed to require preparation and submission of site
rior to
plans under section 18:07-4-E aetitioner6o€athelspeciallpermit requestedngs in the oinethe nt ppetitioner:
issuance of or any use ld the p hardship to the petitioner.
related application would involve substantial and unnecessary p
The controls established in the by for the siting, landscaping, screening, poking
developments (Plans subject
and utilities of and for all buildings in open space village
to site plan review shall show the location and dimensions of the
alot,
jacentetoxthe lot,
and size of any existing or proposed buildings, and proposeark or recreation areas, u
d topography, drives, parking, landscaping, p
existing water sanitary sewerage., and storm drainage; and
of structures and land,screening, ,
separate plans shall also show ground floor plans and architectural elevations o all pro-
posed buildings and signs, to be prepared
eifesuchnbuildingof s containa3S,fl 0 cubiefeetlof
ings) by a registered architect or engineer the issuance of this variance;
space or more (section 18:10-6-A)) will not be cast aside byunder
it is a condition of our granting this vIatriisnvarianceall
goeslonlyans ato theatiminggofrsubm%.ssior
the by-law be submitted and reviewed.
Therefore, the Town and its residents should in no way be affected and the standards
in the by-law for site planning will in no way be undercut.
We find,therefore, that the requested variance #11 may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without derogating from the intent and purpose of the
Yarmouth zoning by-law.
DECISION
n this
Upon the unanimous affirmatievote
and partiBulars asvrequest dwas
ingranted,
VarianceoRequest
17th day of June, 1975, in all respects
#11 subject to the condition specified therein.
VARIANCE #l3 - S ecific Findin s (Local Yard Enjoyment Variance)
bilThe attractiveness and therefore salesetideveloperty of ltonsett aside g units ifor ncluster
theex lusivevus
elopment depends in part on the ability
of residents of each building or group of buildings in a cluster exclusive use of adjacent
it
yard areas, sometimes referred to asorolocal°c�ontrolareas.
immediatekyards thatpossible
anefor
ofthe
owners to enjoy the same individual It also in our esti
main characteristics of single lot, single family home ownership. the consciousness of
oration will stimulate among owners of units in the same subvillage,
neighborhood and feelings of identity needed in a project this large.
From our reading of Section 18:07 as a whole, we find nothing in the general scheme
of open space villages indicating thaegould not ur, but erdareas
et
bardesignationof local yafc
tion 18:07-4-F, taken literally, could bedeemed to
se
all
the exclusive use of one or several
residents
of the drequire
co oWeufindithat hisrwould
areas including local yards by all residents
be unduly and unnecessarily burdensome to the petitioner (not to mention a unit owner
without a yard).
find that owing to physical land conditions affecting the petitioner'
In summary, we other land in the RD-2 district, a literal enforcement
parcel but not affecting generally petitioner from limiting use of the
the by-law insofar as it may be deemed to prevent the
yard areas on lots with awellingss thereon
er severe and tothe r
substantialnhardsh goon elpetia tiauero group
of such residents would impose a
Y
ro:, car readlsS of Section li -07 as a ::hole, we find woblyg in th.
gr i �: a i scheme of open spaAshoutal
illages indicating tt�a 4 e f oze,oing shoo:
no_ c::cur, but we ., ee thaion 1S:07-4-F, take literally- could be
deem-_3 to bar desig��p��ion yard areas ior. he e:cr_liisive use of
or several resident/]C
an'o require corzyon use x �ZI1 vr_bu3_It areas cl�
local yards by all ts of the developm-c. We Find t;�at thi woUIC
be unduly end unnecy burdensome to - e Petitioner (not to?ntion
a unit owner with d).
In sL' mpZ we find that o►.QvIcting
o physi.c:al land cordi" ons affectin;
the Petitioner• s parcel but not generally other ana in the RD.
district, a teral enforcement f the By-lav insofar a it may be deemm
to prevent e Petiti.oner fro limiting 'use of the ya areas on lots wi-
dwellings hereon to the re dents of those dwelling or to groups of sm;
resides ::ould impose a s -ere aria substantial tLsrdship oa the. Petition.
This variance seeks only to permit the developer to set aside local
areas on each bousins lot for the exclusive use of the residants of that
duelling or cluster of dwellings.
As such, the muter is entirely one of internal rights and restric-
tions; it dots not have anything to do with people outside the developme.
Abutters will see no difference in she dart--to-day running of Oak Ha-rbou-
no otter whether this variance is granted or not. W& find that this va-
wili have no effect whatever on the surrounding neighborhood or on the r,
dents of YninoLth.
01h. respect to the intent of Section 18:07-4-F of the By-law, we c,
clude that its basic purpose is to ensure that certain ranu.red open spa!
constituting at least 30% of the total land area; be made available for
use and enjoyment of all residents. As long as this requirement is met,
and we have made certain incur5pecial Permit that it will be net at all t.
during construction and after, ws conclude that' the sense ana purpose F
Open Space pillage By-law will be well observed.
We find therefore, that the. requested z•a iarce "L3 may be granted
iithout substantial detriment to the public good and without derogating
any messura frca the intent and purpose of the Yarmouth Zoning By -Law.
DECISION
unanimous
Upon the/affirmative vote of this Board, a variance was g:am`ed in
respects and particulars as requested in Variance Request 013 on the 17t1
day of June, 1975.
The following appeared In favor of the petition:
Richard Ande,gon, Atty. Mr. Chandler `
• J. Robertson Marian McKinnon (by Letter)
J. Ezrras Robert Halwig (by letter)
E.E. Duar (by letter) Richard G. Allen (by Iette&
2': -
0
:7-c foilrrarin- sppeared in opposzL n:
DuPont P. J. Rczelle (by Jotter)
Merabers of the Board voting on June 17, 1975 to grans: the above variance:
Thomas
N. George
- Votej
in
F4v02_
Robert
Shernti.n
- Voted
in
Favor
David Oman
- Voted
in
favor
Phillip
Dempsey
- Voted
in
Favor
Herbert
RQnl:ainen
- Voted
in
Favor
No permit issued urtil 22 da, s from date of filing the decision wits
the Town Clerk
ver. Robert Sherman,
.Secretary pro ter.,
the c`�.b6ve rifted members of the Foci
-26-