HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals Decision July 2022FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: August E' 2022
PETITION NO: 4965
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
July 2t,2022
Wingste Kirkland Operating, LLC
79 White Rock Roed, Yarmouth Port, MA
Map I15, Percel 233.1.1
Zoning District: R-40 & & Aquifer Protection District
Title: Book 1E997, Page 340
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairmen Steven DeYoung, Sean lgoe, Jay
Fraprie, and John Mrntoni.
Notice ofthe hearing was given by sending notice thereofto the Petitioner and all those owners
ofproperty as required by law. and to the public by posting notice ofthe hearing and publishing
in The ('upe Cod Times. The hearing opened and was held on the date stated above'
The petilioner is Wingate Kirkland Operating. LLC. which does business as the "Camp
Wingate/Kirkland". The location of the camp is 79 White Rock Road, Yarmouth Port. MA. The
petittner seeks relief with respect to a 255 ft.'addition to an existing "Lodge" 8" buildingand to
.onrr*.t a 708 ft., Yurt/Tent structure for staffhousing. The relief sought is in the altemative.
i.e.. a Special Permit under 104.3.2 (4) and/or a variance under Bylaw Section 203.5.
HEARING DATE:
PETITIONER:
PROPERTY:
offending structure'
AppearingonbehalfofthepetitionerwasWilliamRubensteinwhoindicatedthathe.alongwith
fri'r'*ii.. iere the o*n"rr. \iyhil" the petitioner's representative began his presentation with a
t irtory oftn. camp which was ofno iignificant relivance_, relevanr in its history was the fact that
", rr,|ir.t .l3.20Ii. petition 450g granied a Special permir for work rhar was done and needed
relief. The work that was done at ttat time was for a Welcome Center which was already
constructed. At the hearing on rra*"r, r:.2014. Mr. Rubenstein had suggested that the Town
.
adopt some procedure to f^.ilit;;;;;;;;horization should other similar needs arise as this
was. after all. a camp for childrln- 'l'r,ilii'i^ ".tr"" season. This suggestion was made after the
oetitioner was admonished thar-hi. nriri"i-. Inigr,, te easily revolveJ while simitar actions in^the
ffiffi;#*;;;;;ty *i"r"iJ. gir suigestion foian accelerated procedure was rejected
bv all Board Members. rf,. n".alitutiiiinaii"utta tnur.-1 failure to comply with proper
;#ffi ffiil;;,.;ld;;ih.,irr. oru.ing denied relief with orders to remove anv"
Despite this same petitioner and its representalive *''"? -11",.::f:[,!\i.Pi"Tl.1l Y,l""ti"'i;
'ii1ll5[,3,tffi 'HT:[iiT'l'l:::::'Hi'lli"il'1ffi u"ri;iirie"'i""N'{'
Rubenstein appeared *a '"t*lt'['t'i" et;p tht tig"ihcance othis repetitive 'iolation ot
Nopermitshallissueuntil20daysfromthefrrling.of*isdecisionwiththeTorrnClerk.Appeals
from this decision shall tt n",uil pu"u*t to MG1 c40A section l7 and must be filed within 20
days after filing of trris notice/aeciilffi;;i; ro*tr ct.rt. Unless otherwise provided herein' the
zoning relief procedures. Nevertheless. the Board reviewed the merits of this petition. The
petitiJner explained both verbally and by photographs the use and construction ofthe yurt.
Measuring 7b0 ti., the building appears to essentially be a hide-sided tent structure with a
uooden eiposed frame on the interior. There were no beds shown within the photographs:
however. the petitioner's representative indicated that staff members would be housed within the
structure. He ixplained thai beds would be set up around the interior wall and floor area suitable
for staffto store their personal belongings and sleep within the structure. It was represented by
the petitioner that the hreplace/stove that had been shown in previous depictions will be removed
and would not be reinsralled. ln granting relief. the Board relied upon the petitioner's
representation conceming this issue.
As to rhe extension ro "Lodge 8" the petitioner explained that the construction. which had
already occurred, was done to create a private bath,room and sleeping space for staff within the
building. No exhibits were received during the hearing. and no one spoke in favor or against the
petitionir. The Board did, however. receive an anonymous 2-page letter from "a neighborhood
group concemed with the upcoming petition at 79 White Rock Rd.". Unfortunately. this sort of
irronj,.ou "oo.spondence
has a lessened value due to the fact no one has identified themselves
as being the authoi. Nevertheless. the concems within the 2-page letter were considered by the
Board in reaching its deliberative decision.
Mr. Igoe and Mr. DeYoung expressed the significant fact that the petitioner decided to
.r."niiully ..thumb his nose" at the Board and thc admonitions contained within the prior
decision affecting this property. The p€titioner's need to comply with procedures required by the
bylaws was known to ii before the completed work for which it now seeks relief. and it actions
were done with a knowingty complete disregard for such procedures and for the Board's clear
directions. As to the merits of the petition. while the Board did have concerns. it also had to
consider rvhether or not a grant of a Special Permit would result in any undue hazard. nuisance or
congestion or if it would be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood or To\ rl now or in the
future. The property is a large tract *'hich can easily accommodate the new structures' The Board
agreed that a Special Permiicould be granted with certain conditions. The neighbors' complaints
a6out larger ve-hicles coming onto the property tl[ough the neighborhood w'as not an issue that
resutted in any congestion beyond that which might already occur. Accordingly, a motion was
made by Mr. Mr. t'iaprie. seconded by Mr. Mantoni to grant the Special Permit (and thereby
consider the variance as withdrawn) upon the following conditions: I . There be no occupancy of
the yurt and the newly conslructed addition to Lodge 8 until such time as there is a certificate of
occ;pancy issued folior+'ing inspection ofboth the yurt and the addition and by both the Buitding
O.part-ent ana the goard of Hialth: 2. That alt deliveries/6ash removal to the camp and to rhe
properB, from white Rock Road and that such deliveries occur between the hours of l0 AM to 4
iM, 3. thut t1.r. be no further expansion ofany structure or construction ofany new structure at
it i, prop"rty without Zoning Board approval; 4. Thar the petitioner have annual inspections by
the Board of Health and Building Deiartment; 5. That no business be conducted on this propert-v
"*.+t tr,ut "r tr.,* campl 6. thaithe stafflcampers will not ring the camp bell after_sundown: and
7. That the petirioner retum ro this Board at thi end ofJuty 2023.To review with the Board its
.omftian.e*'ith the prior conditions' On this motion' a roll call vote was taken with the
i"ii"l"irg results: Mi. Mantoni-Ayel Mr' lgoe-Aye.: Mr' DeYoung-Ayei and Mr' Fraprie-Aye'
Accordingll,. the Special rermit was grantla on i +-o vote and thc variance was. therefore.
withdrawn without Prejudice'
Special Permir shall lapse ifa substantial use thereof has not bgun within 24 months. (See byla*'
$103.2.5. MGL c40A $9)l=-B&_
Steven DeYoung. Chairman
CERTIFICATION OF TOWN CLERK
l. Mary A. Maslowski, Town clerk. Town of Yarmouth, do hereby certiry that 20 days have
elapsed since the filing with me of the above Board of Appeals Decision #4965 that no notice of
appeal of said decision has been filed with me. or. if such appeal has been filed it has been
dismissed or denied. All appeals have been exhausted.
Malv A. Maslowski