Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout135 Route 28 Decision 19020 Q Filed with Town Clerk: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS FEB 2 2 133 Hearing Date: 1/27/83 Petitioner: Russell W. Nesbit, d/b/a Tidewater Motor Lodgetion No.: 1902 135 Main St., W. Yarmouth, Mass. or 27 Thyme Lane Osterville, Mass. DECISION The petitioner requested a variance and/or approval of the Board of Appeals to allow the reduction in buffer strip requirement. Property located at 135 Main St., (Route 28), W.Yarmouth, Mass.- known as Tidewater Motel. Shown on Assessors map U31-M1; being in the Highway Commercial District. Members of Board of Appeals present: Donald Henderson, Myer Singer, David -Oman, Lee Marchildon, Les Campbell. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Yarmouth Sun on 1/12/83 and 1/19/83, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in.favor of the petition: Russell W. Nesbit, petitioner. The following appeared in opposition: None. Reasons for decision: This is•a request for a variance and/or special permit to allow the 20' green strip between a property line and a parking area, to be reduced to 10' or less. The petitioner submitteda site plan to the Board.showing the proposed green strip. This shows that a portion of the present green strip is situated not on land of the peti- tioner, but in the road layout. Petitioner proposes to approximatly double the size of the existing green strip. However, should the road be widened, a portion of the strip, as presently located, could be eliminated. The Board is mindful of the fact that the present and past owners of the Tidewater Motel have done a find job with the landscaping of the property, and it is one of the more.attractive properties on Route 28. However, the Board finds that petitioner did not prove, the'necessary hardship that is required for this Board to grant a variance. There is no section of the by-law which would allow us to grant a special permit in this situation. There is sufficient space for the entire 20' buffer strip to be installed as required by the by-law. Petitioner may have to relocate some of his proposed parking or change the traffic flow on his property to accomplish this, but in view of the size of the tract of land on which the motel is located, the Board feels it is feasible, and sympathizes with the petitioner, but since the criteria of the by-law have not been met, the request for a special permit and/or variance is denied. Members of Board voting: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Myer Singer, Lee Marchildon, Les Campbell. Therefore, petitioners request is denied for the above stated reasons. MYER SINGER, Clerk pro tem TOWN OF YARMOUTH . BOARD OF APPEALS owNER: NAME: Main Street Properties Co. Trust APPEALS # ADDRESS: 135 Main St. West Yarmouth, Mass. PETITIONER: NAME: Russell W. Nesbit D/B/A Tidewater Motor Lodge a7 fie / _ADDRESS: 135 Main St. West Yarmouth, Mass. Ile BOARD OF APPEALS, YARMOUTH, MASS. This petition when completed and signed must be filed with the Board of Select- men, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, along with the fee of $30.00. DATE: PAID: ffd.Clz% 1. I, We, hereby appeal from decision of the Building Inspector and petition your board for a public hearing on the action checked below: 1. Review refusal of Building Inspector to grant permit. r.Z!�J, 2. Decision of Selectmen. 2. I, We, hereby request the action checked below: cn ' _ l: Variance from requirements of Yarmouth Zoning By -Law. Approval of the Board of Appeals. L; "!3. A special permit from the Board of Appeals. L_i LJ i ' c-To allow: n (� ' <;j bc., ew— �Yp requcre,LPa^ n Cx /3v e. �Oj' Zi CcJ, j�.�,ra-�vc�Z`� owcQ c5�c�cv ceri 3. Reason for the Board of Appeals action as checked below:- 1. Contrary to Zoning by-laws as follows. 1. 2. 3. 2. Approval of Board of Appeals, or Special Permit requested under the following section of Zoning By -Law: 1. 2. Names and addresses of abutting property owners, and those persons deemed affected by this application. (At least three.) Signe Respectfully submitted TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS January 27, 1983 Russell W. Nesbit Tidewater Motel Appeal No. 1902 Members present: Donald Henderson, David Oman, Myer Singer, Les Campbell, Lee Marchildon. The Chairman called the meeting to order and re a d the petition. All abutters were notified and the necessary correspondence was made in the Yarmouth Sun. Mr. Nesbit: Because of the particular situation that is particular to my property, I have asked to come before you tonight. The intent of the by-law, I feel, is going to be served as well by varying the size of the island that is in question, that is located in the center of the property, next to the street. The rear building that is being erected, is located between the pool, outdoor pool and the street, and is shown in the center of the property there. There is some landscaping that is going to be added around the building and to the east of the building, as shown on the plan. It is a little difficult to see.' I have taken a map and colored in green, what is presently now the green buffer strip in front of the property. In front of the east and west building, that was existing, there is quite a large buffer strip, some 40' in depth x some 80' to 90' wide, and it runs on both sides of the property. The buffer strip that presently exists is a 5' buffer strip that runs between the 2 driveways. What I am asking relief for, because of what I feel is a hardship that is created because it will hamper the flow of traffic between the 2 drives. I have shown in red here what I am suggesting, and that is now parallel..to the ei:istiltg buffer strip, and increase it to a 10' strip instead of 20'. Mr. Oman: Is that indicated by the dash line? Mr. NeVt• Yes. The solid red is the present buffer strip, the dash line is what I propose �°o increase the buffer strip to 10', paralleling the present buffer that is there now. When the existing buffer strip was installed, it was not installed exactly parallel to the property line. But because it is existing, I am told it can remain as it is,and what I wish to do is add an additional 5' to it to increase it to 101. That, with the landscaping that is shown in front of the building, which will vary from 5' to 10' in width, as well as the landscaping that is going to be between the new building and the buildings to the east, that will be approximatly-- 50' in depth.x approximatly_ 50' hide. So I feel the intent of the.by-law.'.is still ,met, because there will be an accumulated sum of at least 20' when taking into consideration the landscaping in front of the building. And, as I understand the by-law, the -intent was to screen the parking areas from Route 28, or to add a green area between the parking areas, and this I feel will still serve the intent of the by-law, yet allow me to still have the proper ingress and egress from the parking areas as well as people wishing to turn around in front'of the property. As it will be done with the 10',it would still allow a car coming down Route 28 that might pull into the Tidewater for one reason or another, decide not to stay or just turning around, to still be able to negotiate and come out the other drive. Mr. Henderson: Are you asking for a variance or a special permit? Pet. #1902 Page 2 Mr. Nesbit: I was told by the Plan Review Board first that it was to be a special permit, but then after reviewing it further with the Building Inspector, he felt that it would probably have to be a variance, in which case, or at least that is the way he read it, and I guess it is a matter or interpretation. In reading the by-law, I believe the intent of the by-law was's solid 20' strip between any park- ing and Route 28, but because of the particular situation that I have here, I still feel that the intent of the by-law will be met in that there is now in front of _ ..each of the existing buildings, -and the accumulative -landscaping -at the front of the property would still act as a green strip between that and the parking area to the rear. That is my reasoning for coming before you this evening. Mr. Henderson: The criteria for a variance are fairly explicit, and fairly strict. What is your hardship? Mr. Nesbit: The hardship being created is primarily the entrance and exit onto Route 28 being hampered by having to increase that island from 5' to 20'. Again, I am not sure ... in going before the Plan Review Board, and in reading the by-law, there is a gray area in the by-law. The Plan Review Board felt that because the present laws the way they exist in the Town of Yarmouth, that the Plan Review Board had no leverage as far as being able to interpret the law, that there was an article that had gone before town meeting but a quoram wasn't available, thus the whole thing was tabled. But they didn't feel that they had any ability to make 'a determination as -to whether the intent of the by-law is being served or not. I'm not sure whether I'm asking the Board for a variance or special permit. In any case, the hardship that is created is the:fact that to -increase the island to 20' will create a hardship on the property in that it will not properly allow traffic to turn in that area, and not be as flowing area as it has been in the past. Mr. Henderson: The building that you are putting up is a new building - why did you chose the location that it is being built in - why didn't you build it back? Is it feasible to move it.. Mr. Nesbit: No. •In order... the building was placed where it was because of restric- tions that have to do with setbacks and as far as the existing septic system is con- cerned, and in order to place the required footage on both sides of the septic and being able to put the required footage between the swimming pool and the rear building. So.there was no room to alter that. Plus, the feeling from the architect and the engineer was that the buildings lined up properly across with creating the most pleas- ing eye level. Mr. Henderson: Okay, why don't we find out what questions we have from the audience if there are any. Mr. Singer: If you were to move the parking spaces that appear to be shown - those are parking spaces 56 thru 60 in front of the new building ... if those parking spaces were not there, would you then be able to have the free flow of traffic? Mr. Nesbit: No, it still would not allow enough passage through. The parking spaces that are there,.people are going to park in front, and although they are not necessarily needed as far as..I have enough to be able to fit parking spaces in other areas, but it will still create too much of a barrier through there. By going out the full 20' from the property line, even without the parking space, there is not enough of a way to get through with the traffic. Pet. #1902 Page 3 Mr. Singer: How many units in the present... before your addition and how many units in your addition? Mr. Nesbit: I am adding 11. There are 42 existing, and adding 11 units. Mr. Singer: You are adding them up to the front ... you said you couldn't move them back 10' or 15' or 20' because of the existing sewage system and what have you. Mr. Nesbit: The existing sewage system on one side and getting the new sewage system ----- between the outdoor pool and the building. Mr. Singer: What about...could those units fit someplace else totally on the property like back behind the other swimming pool or... Mr. Nesbit: The problem is, this new building isatie larger living area and office complex, which really has to be in front of the property. This will be the office we will function out of for the rental of rooms and it also gives us the best exposure over the existing indoor and outdoor swimming pool for safety for the guests. So that is the reason the building really has*to be in front of the property. Mr. Singer: The only other comment I would have is, in looking at the by-laws, 3135 says that parking areas for 5 or more cars will be separated from any street line by an area 20' wide, and it goes on about other things. So, it would seem to me that it would be a variance we will have to be approving and not a special permit, because we would have to vary that language. Also, I agree with Mr. Henderson that we would have to find some unique conditions that result in a hardship, and I'm not sure I see those at this point. Mr. Henderson: Why don'-t we find what other people have... Mr. Oman: Where is the ingress to the units you are requesting Mr. Nesbit? Mr. Nesbit: It_will be to the west of the new building, which will be to the Baxter Ave. end. Mr. Oman: So those parking spaces marked 56 - 59 are for the purpose of registration or for... Mr. Nesbit: It could be for either. Mr. Oman: But in any event, they would have to walk around the building. Mr. Nesbit: They would walk to either side. There are also units away from the Baxter Ave. side, in the east building, there are units right on the end. Mr. Oman: No access to those units from the northerly side or from the 28 section, is that right? Mr. Nesbit: Yes, there is access to the rooms right from ...there will be walkways shown...concrete walkways shown around that building on the west side, or rather on the east side, the east side being the end away from Baxter Ave.. Mr. Oman: I see walkways, but I am confused as this is rather poor printing. I see walkways but I am not relating the walkways and to what we are talking about as far as Pet:. #1902 Page 4 ingress to the building I guess. Mr. Nesbit: The rooms from the new building will enter from the outdoor swimming pool side. Mr. Oman: So why would one want to park on the opposite side of the building -and have to walk all the way around the building and come in? Mr. Nesbit: Those particular units, the people may not necessarily park there. They would probably park adjacent to the swimming pool. The units that will be in the east building, which is the furthest from Baxter Ave., there is a concrete walk around there, and there is access to those rooms from that walkway. So unit parking areas 58, 59, 60 will be just a short distance from those. Mr. Oman: There is something that is a tremendous blur here. It looks like two lots. It runs on the southerly side of half a parking lot, looks like parking lot 60, and I can't really identify what that.is. What does that mean? Mr. Nesbit: There will be a -walkway here.that will connect... a walkway that will connect here and there will be access across here. I am not exactly sure how it is going to lay yet but there will be access across here by foot. Mr. Oman: Alright, so there is no more... Mr. Nesbit: There will be a concrete berm across here that..this area will be land- scaped. Mr. Oman: Can you show me your green landscape plan? Mr. Nesbit: Sure. MrSo-tlU is what you have now, this is existing. This other part is new, and an additional 5' here as shown. Mr. Nesbit: That is right. Mr. Oman; What is the difference now between the property line and the building? Mr. Nesbit; It varies because of the way the property line runs. It is close to 50'. Mr. Oman; The planting in this. proposed 5' and the existing, what sort of planting are we talking about? Mr. Nesbit: The existing planting are those shrubs that are approximatly 4' high, the area is mulched and in the summertime there are flowers planted on the Route 28 side of the shrubs. We will have; including the proposed, shrubs and bushes, we will probably not exceed 3 or 4'. Mr. Oman: There seems to be in excess of 40 but less than 45. 20' is the requirement. Certainly 20' width, a width of 201. I don't know if you will have directionals, or one way. I am not going to try to design this for you, but it we think it is a var- iance, and a variance is tougher to get than anything else, and everyone else has to comply. We have to have good reasoning, and I am not necessarily seeing all this good reasoning why we should vary and be so liberal as to allow you to park there. I think you indicated yourself that the intent of the by-law is to buffer parking areas and Pet. #1902 Page 5 here in fact it appears that the design iss iat the.parking is put there regardless of the by-law, as opposed to putting it, and again, I am not going to attempt to say where you should put it. Maybe there isn't any other room - maybe there isn't. I haven't heard that. But I guess that is yours to prove that there is adequate areas. Mr. Marchildon: Is there any possibility of taking a little more space from the green area on the two corners of the property instead of in the center..see where this existing berm is, moving that a little closer _to Baxter Ave. and on the other side moving it a little closer to the property line? - Mr. Nesbit: That I don't think will increase the accessability of being able to turn around. It's one of the, if you have been down in that area at all, it's one of the only properties that a person coming from a different direction can turn -in and be able to turn himself around and head in the other direction on Route 28. It's been used in the past quite extensively, and my particular guests use it quite heavily as well, being able to use that, and that is the reason I have the two drives. It's a good situation to be able to get out either side onto Route 28 without being caught out in the traffic and having just'one way in. Mr. Marchildon: I think you missed my point - I don'.t think you answered my question at all. If you think the driveways in and out aren't wide enough... Mr. Nesbit: No, it's not that the driveways in and out aren't wide enough, it's the area between the new building that will be the problem. It will be the bottleneck where people will try to come in,'and unfortunatly, people don't always park their cars as they should, and they don't always use marked areas, and they will pretty much park as is convenient for them, that may be in the middle of the driveway. They just don't park really where they are supposed to park. My reasoning for being here is that I feel that the intent of the article will still be served by having enough green area. I don't think there is another property that is along this stretch or in many other parts of Route 28 that have any more green areas in front of their property than the Tidewater does. So I am here to ask for relief as far as the article is concerned, or the interpretation of the by-law. I agree with the by-law and I think that whether it is 10' or 20', I don't think the person driving down Route 28 is going to be able to tell the difference. The by-law doesn't tell me how high the shrubs have to be or they don't have to say what has to be in the green area. To throw some grass in there that people are going to drive over, I don't think serves the intent of the by-law as well either. But in as far as reducing, -yes, as far as the by-law is concerned, I could in fact cut into the green area that does exist on both sides of the property, but that would'be just removing more green area, because I do on both sides have more green area than is required by the by-law. Mr. Marchildon: I can see that. Mr. Nesbit: When you take the total sum of the green area in front of the Tidewater, I think it more than enhances what the intent of the by-law is, and again, I agree with the by-law, but I have the particular situation here that is created that some- body has to be able to say, well the intent of the by-law is being served. The idea of the by-law is to:_have at least the 20' buffer between the parking areas. I think that the sum total of the green area will well exceed the intent of the by-law. It isn't quite cut and dried as to how you... and in the by-law it doesn't say that it has to be contiguous 20'. I am sure the intent of the person who wrote the by-law. was that this must be a 20' contiguous area and it can't be separated by drives, but it doesn't necessarily say that in the by-law. I'm not trying to tear the language Pet. #1902 Page 6 of the by-law apart,I am just point out that this is a special situation, and I am not sure that the best way that this can be served or the intent of the article can be served. But, I think I have more than exceeded more than the sum total. Mr. Henderson: Mr. White (B1dg.Insp.), did you have anything you wanted to say on this? Mr. White: Not particularly, but down -the -road a ways,_if that road was ever.taken and widened, he would lose the 5' and would end up with a 5' buffer, is what I am- - - - concerned about. I don't know what is going to happen - nobody knows what is going to happen.in the future. Mr. Henderson: Anyone in the audience who has any questions, either for or against.. (none) Mr. Oman: I really just don't like getting into the design. I think we agreed before not to get into that area - that is the petitioner's problem, but just so we under- stand where we are heading and where we are going... I guess my first question has to be - is there area, or necessary parking area, or required parking area, available in other.areas of the property? Mr. Nesbit: As it presently stands, leaving enough area around, it would be difficult to move those 5 spaces back in the paved area at the present time. I could, as was suggested, take part of the green area up in the front or on either side and reduce that and pick up some more parking spaces, but I hate to do that because I don't think that it will look as well. And, without going back beyond the.indoor pool, further from the units, there really isn't another place where those spaces can be put and have it realisticLy-servicable. Unfortunatly, people will park in unmarked spaces as well as in marked spaces. Mr. Oman: Do you see people parking in that area would be for registration purposes or to come see if you have a room available - is that for transient parking or per- manent parking? Mr. Nesbit: I suspect it will be probably be more for transient. However, there will probably be some people that will park out there.because it's easy, it's closer to some of the units, it is closer than some of the other spaces might be, and as the lot begins to fill up with cars,.they will pick the most convenient spots. Some people will pull up and register and just leave their car right there. They might have minimal luggage, so I suspect those spaces will be used quite extensivly. I might add one other point'- that even with the full 20' buffer strip, people will still block up that area, and unfortunatly at that point, creating more of a hazard as far as people trying to get in and out and around the property. It has been also suggested that I not close off the area to the east area, the one that is furthest away from Baxter Ave, that I leave that open for entrance and exit onto the property. But it has been looked into.by the engineer and the architect and their feeling was that there would be more of a hazard for people trying to walk across that area, and that it would be much preferable to have the green area there and it would also tend to screen the parking area in.the back from Route 28. Mr. Oman: Okay.one comment. I think all of us recognize that this motel has been about as manicured in those green areas as nice as, or if not one of the best... but right to the bottom line, Mr. Nesbit, if your petition is turned down tonight, what are your alternate plans? Pet. #1902 Page 7 Mr. Nesbit: There is no otheralternate plan. The 20' green area will be put in. There really is not anything else that I can do except put in that 20', but I feel that it's not going to be in the best interest of the traffic flow, the best interest for the guests trying to get in and out of there, and I don't think that the town is going to be any better served by that additional 10'. Mr. Marchildon: Do I understand that this plan was turned down by the Site Review Team? - Mr. Nesbit: The plan was accepted after the change was made increasing the island size to 20' from the property line, which in some cases will increase the island - size to 25'. The plan was approved with the additional change made with the buffer increased because they felt that they had no leverage to be able to interpret the by-law in any other way than the full 20'. Mr. Marchildon: And after that, you got a building permit, and after that, knowing this, you went right ahead and built, knowing the clearances that were in here. Mr. Nesbit: Knowing that I had to put in the 20' buffer strip. It was the only way that I was able to get the building done during the wintertime when it has to be completed. Mr. Marchildon: Why didn't you just say the building can't fit there, you can't put the building there? Mr. Nesbit: The building will fit there. The 20' buffer strip will create a situa- tion that is livable but not a good situation, I believe, either for the town of the people traveling on Route 28 or trying to get in and out of the motel. I can try to move things around, and I will try to do whatever I can to ... maybe I am going have to eliminate some of the landscaping in front of the building. I don't want to have to do that but maybe that has to be a sacrifice that I am going to have to make. By removing that, . --I will pick some extra 10' or 12' of area to pass. But again, it's not going to serve the best interest of the town or the by-law. It's a tough situa- tion. Mr. Henderson:- Okay, unless someone on the Board has something further, we will take this under advisement. We have 4 other hearings. Assuming we will get through them fairly quickly, we will come back to yours and try to make a decision on it tonight. Hearing closed. ) APPLICANT: LOCATION: TOWN OF YARMOUTH - SITE PLAN REVIEW Tide Water Motel 135 Main Street Rte. 28 West Yarmouth, Mass. - ASSESSORS' MAP.# PARCEL # DATE: De�_�1982 FOUR SETS OF PLANS SUBMITTED: YES NO PERSONS PRESENT AT REVIEW HEARING: 31 M-1 (lac C>C�:=(ice r L Ivy 13A1 r. e .' 1:..• V i .^ to PLAN DISAPPROVED COMMENTS/INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY APPLICANT:_ Si , n T _ w{ia.., 420muc Y3 PLAN APPROVED CONDITIONS AGREED UPON: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS G� �/ �/ l ��"' Z2 r TOWN OF YARMOUTH - SITE PLAN REVIEW Tide Hater Motor Lodge APPLICANT: LOCATION: - Rte. 28 ASSESSORS' MAP 31 PARCEL #! f4l November 2, 1982 FOUR SETS OF PLANS SUBMITTED: YES X NO DATE: PERSONS PRESENT AT REVIEW HEARING: i .r • � ,PEST li{ry/T,c� PLAN DISAPPROVED L COMMENTS/INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY APPLICANT:• Pla� irentE>LU —See_ nilk- -!a ✓kr I — Oil( EWA 1 Phls� > ��l.prscni �r'r>tk�r�e ticrrli�iCJ LI vL._r._/ nr,cc_<,Or�irn 5 _ Milrk u ll C-C-n5Cr'✓0-+k_ UPMht, f1 -s aPLAN APPROVED CONDITIONS AGREED UPON: (^• �,c.'Ti %) lu«!(. tti,y >' AJr 1.LCL J Srl+ii —� • 1\C G♦ t � r- l,J-S N�; i- 17 /r�j Lw �. !',ti liri-1..:! /_ti%rf �tii�✓: cap .0 LET': �l1�LllCe tJ L•C ZC� S'I{C�•I '<• [A^�PLi L:'ai� C•hLJl..T16�,; L'7C. /l.!(�a-1• IC ,t ADDITIONAL COMMENTS : TRH Alflr�i�9 SY�.crl `Y/C.c B� /yr��,�� �'A.ES //I// I—E fig o .2 p NfCf- I'i k SeA-t) F104i- / cv5r., I - /-nc"c" IQOUw+ t-IW_SYkiortuL<=CljrC.�.P • rn�iI-" shL-J-1 cc(I ui, 1,7 CJCD•--eXC15-1 j 1� or !-rsTi-rc uS-C LlS &- S ivr,"4,1cL 6'.11 clso h-,> 100' /-yorh c 1'r-k,k S-W AVC% 1