The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNHolcomb Comments 1202161 Williams, Kathleen From:Holcomb, Norm Sent:Friday, December 02, 2016 5:13 PM To:Williams, Kathleen; Dennehy, Linda Cc:Lawton, Bob; Greene, Karen Subject:Re: 77 Route 28 Thanks Kathy. I make the comparison of our one bedroom condominium unit, which was about 750 sq ft, in Vermont. For a couple that might be a reasonable starter apartment. In my opinion that is small for more than two people. I feel strongly that we should be looking for ways to find developers who might construct apartments with units that are attractive and reasonably sized. And I beleive we should not provide variances that comprpomise living standards. From: Williams, Kathleen Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 5:48 PM To: Holcomb, Norm; Dennehy, Linda Cc: Lawton, Bob; Greene, Karen Subject: RE: 77 Route 28 Hi Norm, The Planning Board as Special Permit Granting Authority is the one to decide if the relief requested from the Zoning Bylaw meets the Special Permit criteria. This is done at a formal Public Hearing where input from the public is heard. I have a feeling the relief requested will be too much for the Board and I would not recommend they give this level of relief on the unit sizes. The project will also need to go before the Community Housing Committee who have their own set of standards on minimum unit sizes. As currently designed, only 1 of the six proposed affordable units would meet the Town’s minimum size requirements for affordable units. The applicant is aware of all of these challenges. Thanks, Kathy ---------------------------------------- Kathy Williams, PE Yarmouth Town Planner 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492 (508) 398-2231 Ext 1276 kwilliams@yarmouth.ma.us From: Holcomb, Norm Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 5:41 PM To: Dennehy, Linda 2 Cc: Lawton, Bob; Williams, Kathleen Subject: Re: 77 Route 28 I don't understand why we would give" relief" that allows a "tiny house" approach in such a setting. How can we justify allowing ANY relief ? From: Dennehy, Linda Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:12 PM To: Holcomb, Norm Cc: Lawton, Bob; Williams, Kathleen Subject: FW: 77 Route 28 Hi Norm, I thought Bob forwarded the email below to you but it appears you may not have received it. Please see Kathy Williams email below. Thank you. Linda From: Williams, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 5:23 PM To: Lawton, Bob; Dennehy, Linda Cc: Greene, Karen Subject: 77 Route 28 Hi Bob/Linda, Please find below my response to Norm Holcomb’s questions regarding proposed improvements at 77 Route 28. Thanks, Kathy This project at 77 Route 28 is a conversion from a 35‐unit motel to 22‐unit multi‐family housing (apartments) using Zoning Bylaw Section 404. The proposed units range from 251 square feet to over 750 square feet. They are not meeting all of the unit size requirements per Section 404 and would need to seek relief from the Planning Board. Chris Greeley has numerous good comments and there will be ample opportunities for residents to comment on the project through the Community Housing Committee public meeting and the Planning Board Public Hearing. She also attended and provided comment at the Design Review Committee meeting which is a public meeting. Chris is aware of these opportunities and I have told her I will notify her of when these meetings are scheduled. ---------------------------------------- Kathy Williams, PE Yarmouth Town Planner 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492 (508) 398-2231 Ext 1276 kwilliams@yarmouth.ma.us 3 From: hiridge415 [mailto:hiridge415@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:15 PM To: Williams, Kathleen Subject: RE: For Tuesday meeting Chris raises questions about the livability of the units. What's the size and configuration of these? Are they appartments? Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Williams, Kathleen" <kwilliams@yarmouth.ma.us> Date: 11/22/16 10:25 AM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Norman Holcomb' <hiridge415@gmail.com> Subject: RE: For Tuesday meeting Hi Norm, She is talking about a proposed motel conversion at 77 Route 28, Sepnessett Village which is undergoing Formal Site Plan Review today. No funding is being requested from the AHT for this project. Thanks, Kathy ---------------------------------------- Kathy Williams, PE Yarmouth Town Planner 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492 (508) 398-2231 Ext 1276 kwilliams@yarmouth.ma.us From: Norman Holcomb [mailto:hiridge415@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:03 PM To: greeleyc Cc: Murphy, Bruce; Williams, Kathleen Subject: Re: For Tuesday meeting I came into this exchange late so do not know what development is being discussed. Is this an affordable housing development? On Nov 21, 2016 10:16 PM, "Chris Greeley" <greeleyc@comcast.net> wrote: I was sorry to hear we will not be allowed to observe the meeting. I think as you have seen before we do not want to interrupt but simply better understand the reasoning behind the plans and decisions that are being made. Having said that, I continue to have significant concerns that I think are important to the process: 4 1. The Town gets just this opportunity to address what has been a long standing blight on the gateway to West Yarmouth, and is even more significantly noticeable as the Mill Pond area is restored and Mayflower has gone to incredible efforts and commitment to build a structure that will be an asset to this town. 2. The issue of profit/financial return versus making this look better was clearly evident during the presentation and response to your requests during the session we attended. The developer was clear, I felt, in his comments and seemed to expect that the Town would accept that response. 3. Although the internal structural and safety issues have been addressed at the adjacent lodging house, it truly does not have any changes other than some small external aesthetics- fencing and overgrown shrub removal and replanting. It is not an attractively remodeled building. The motel needs significant external design work to make it look other than an aging strip motel. 4. I think there are significant quality of life issues with the proposal, and historically properties that are not viewed in positive ways by tenants suffer as they see no "ownership" or "pride" in their residency. 5. The size of the units should be of significant concern as they are basically reworked motel/hotel rooms. A 16x16 room is 256 square feet- in which you have a bathroom, kitchen and door openings before you allow for any furniture of any sort in the room. Please take a look at the size of the room you will be meeting in and understand all that would take place in it- from sleeping to cooking to bathing to sitting with any visitors? 6. The chart outlining the size of the units shows a size range of square footage. It needs to be looked at very carefully as in each category the overwhelming majority of the rooms are barely the minimum listed and in no instance do any of the rooms ever get anywhere near the upper range of square footage listed. Only 2 of the 250-400 sq. foot rooms are 311, versus the others minimally at 251 to 256. Even the over 750 sq. feet rooms are only 751, 752 and 766 feet. 7. The idea that the bathrooms are primarily simply shower stalls, fine for a hotel travel stay, is beyond belief. As I have stated before, where do children bathe- in the kitchen sink? When shown on Sheet 10 in many instances they look barely large enough to use comfortably. 8. I think that the idea of a backyard play and recreation area sounds wonderful, but the practicality of getting down the building from your unit to an opening and out back carrying whatever you need to go there is highly unrealistic and it is more likely that the current practice of motel residents to sit on their front door steps and have lawn chairs in the parking area in front of their unit is more likely. A back door from the unit, along with some type of small deck at each door would be much more practical and user friendly. 9. I continue to be extremely concerned with the idea that the existing sub- sized entry doors will not be replaced by standard sized doors. As the only egress from the unit I think they are a substantial safety hazard. I question the size of the back windows and whether an adult could exit in an emergency from either front or back, or that First Responders would be able to successfully enter and rescue occupants. 10. Will there be occupancy numbers established with the units, especially since when drawn on the plan such as Unit 17, it is obvious only a twin bed could fit the bedroom space? Also are any financial contribution requirements made of the developer given there may be increased costs to the Town especially around school attendance numbers. These are a few of the questions I have especially as the prospect of having that building allowed to remain as essentially unchanged in it's appearance is not welcome or acceptable news to my way of thinking. Thanks, 5 Chris