Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 3824Bk 17369 PS102 088555 TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: May 20, 2003 . PETITION NO. #3824 HEARING DATE: May 8, 2003 PETITIONER: Peter H. & Patricia E. Ward W R� OUTH TOWN C;+_ERK 2M MAY 20 M 1: 4 RECEIVED PROPERTY: 31 Pond Street, South Yarmouth Assessors Map: 60, Lot: 253 (53/Q3) Zoning District: RS40 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: John Richards, Chairman, Joseph Sarnosky, Diane Moudouris, Sean Igoe, and James Robertson. 4 It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and published in The Register, the hearing was opened and held on the date stated above. The petitioner seeks a Variance or Special Permit in order to move 2 existing cottages, add a deck to one and an addition to the other. The property is approximately 26,800 square feet and sits in the RS40 zone. The use and structure are non -conforming. The petitioner, as shown on his site plans (dated February 24, 2003), has four (4) buildings on his site. A two (2) story owner occupied dwelling (referred to as the main house) and a garage, plus two one -bedroom cottages, referred to as 31A & 31B. Cottage 31A is presently 1.8' from the side lot line and 11 feet from the front line. The proposal seeks to move each away from the lot lines and further back from the street. As proposed on the petitioners site plan, filed with this Board, each would conform to the setback requirements. Cottage 31B would have a new foundation built and a deck added. Cottage 31A would have a new foundation and an addition of 12' x 10'. Each would remain single story and one -bedroom dwellings. The intended use of the cottage is rental to employees of the petitioners motel business. The board expressed concerns for expanding and perpetuating three dwelling units on such a modest lot. While the relocations would be more appropriate and more conforming, the expansion also could permit greater use of each cottage. After further discussion, it was moved by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Robertson, to allow the proposed relocation of both cottages, the 12' x 10' addition to Cottage A, as shown on the petitioners relocation plan (2/24/03) except no deck to be constructed to Cottage B, on the condition that the occupancy of the two cottages be limited to April 1 to November 1. The members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. A second motion was made by Mr. Igoe, ' Bk 17369 P91OZ 488555 seconded by Mr. Robertson to deny the request for a Variance, being considered not necessary. The members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. No permit shall issue until 20 days from the filing of this decision with the Town Clerk. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to MGL c40A section 17 and must be filed within 20 days after filing of this noticeldecision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein, the Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See bylaw § 103.2.5, MGL c40A §9) Unless otherwise provided herein, a Variance shall lapse if the rights authorized herein are not excised within 12 months. (See MGL c4OA § 10) David S. Reid, Clerk 2 A TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Meeting Date: May 8, 2003 PETITIONER# 3824: Peter H. & Patricia E. Ward,149 Route 28, NW Members of the Board present and voting: John Richards, Chairman, Diane Moudouris, Sean Igoe, James Robertson, Richard Neitz Mr. Richards read the legal ad. Mr. Peter Ward, owner, was presented this petition. Mr. Ward presented photographs of the cottages. He gave a history of the property. What initiated the work on the property was the main house, circa 1830, was undergoing some structural improvements. We added a foundation to the main house and then looked at the other cottages and they also are very tight to the ground. They are showing signs of decay. We have done the main house foundation. The problem with Cottage A, nearest the street, is we can't put a foundation under it because it is to close to the property line and to access it would interrupt the neighbor's driveway. We need approximately 3' to dig the 4' deck. That is what initiated us to doing these considerations. It would be an improvement to get that cottage away from the street and utilize more of the lot. Both cottages are toward the street and you have an expansive lot vacant behind the house, part of the motel property. There is more buffer in the back, but the cottages are crowded towards the street. There is a mistake in the application that Mr. Brandolini and I made. There are actually three individual houses, the way they are classified now, shown on the assessor's references. They are called multiple houses on the lot, it is not multi -families, on the lot. This is also shown in the Yarmouth Historic Register how it was used, in the first paragraph, (attached to photos). "The present owners live in the house, rent the rooms in the house and the history of this property and house also saw a library, a gym, a post office, a home, an Inn. It has been moved a couple of times, the big house. The other structures were added in 1940. They do need some work to them. Mr. Ward: We would like a Special Permit to re -arrange the cottages on the property and to allow the parking to be more off street and more private to each unit. I have spoke to the neighbors and there doesn't seem to be any dissatisfaction with the proposal. Mr. Richards read the correspondence in the file. A memo from the Planning Board not in favor of granting a Variance that would allow any buildings used as multi -family housing. Mr. Ward: I talked to Brad Goodwin today and told him what our intent was and he wished he knew ahead of time that they were individual houses, he thought we were dividing them to use as condominium rather then rental. Mr. Ward: We own a motel and have used these as staff housing, that is the reason we purchased the property. 1 m Mr. Igoe: So you would like to take 31B and move back to a new location, and add a deck to that keeping the same footprint of the house adding a foundation. Mr. Ward: Yes, add a foundation and add a deck. Mr. Igoe: Then you want to take 31A and put it where 31B is and you want to add a 12' x 16' addition. Mr. Ward: That unit is very small and tight. We had a single individual staying there and it was too tight. Most of the staff has partners and we thought it would help that. Mr. Igoe: Are people currently living there year round? Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Igoe: I noticed on the property cards the town has them listed as no heat. Mr. Ward: They have electric heat. We have only occupied cottage A. We have a building permit to renovate cottage b now. It needed interior work. Mr. Igoe: There is no other work to be done on the large house but for the foundation. Mr. Ward: Yes, that is all. Mr. Robertson: The application asks for a Variance, for what? Mr. Ward: For the change of use. But it is actually the same use. When Jim and I looked at it we didn't have the documents in front of me when I took out the application. What we are asking for now, is a Special Permit to relocate and add to them. Mr. Robertson: So you are no longer asking for Variance relief. Mr. Ward: I don't think it is required, that is a determination I can't make. The Special Permit would cover the functions we want to do. Mr. Robertson: I ask because on the application in the Variance section, you can't get there from here. It makes no sense. Mr. Ward: We were trying to cover the bases of the application, there are no building department records so we relied on the assessors records to ..... Mr. Robertson: In 202.5, use section of the bylaw, the A section which covers all residential uses there is an A3, A3 is a use that can only be created by a Special Permit by the Planning board. If you go to §402. which is the A3, A3 is described in §402... (read section) This section is to create one of the 3 types ofA3 uses. Mr. Robertson: What you have is a pre-existing non -conforming situation. 2 Mr. Ward: It really falls under, the lot, 104.4.(5) other non -conforming lots. We are now meeting the set backs for the zone. Mr. Robertson: I would suggest that §104.3.1-(3) is where it probably should be. Other lawful pre-existing non -conforming structures and two of these structures are non -conforming. A,B,C all have to be found present. What you have here is a house and two seasonal cottages. It is not unique in this Zoning District. I can tell you where another one exist, River Street. Mr. Neitz: Well I guess I am confused. Are we in 104.3.2? Mr. Robertson: Yes. We cant' create an A3. Mr. Ward: No, the A3 is wrong on the application. In the Assessors office they call it multi - housing. Mr. Neitz: Multiple units on the same lot. So we need to discuss this under § 104.3.2. Mr. Robertson: I think we come to the conclusion that the Variance is not needed. Mr. Neitz: Is the main structure currently used on a year-round basis, or is that also seasonal or your primary residence? Mr. Ward: It was used one year in the off season, it had electric heat. That is why we made the determination to go ahead in put the basement in it. I have owned it for 4 years and rented it two summers. I want to put in a furnace and use it year round. Mr. Neitz: For your own purpose? Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Neitz: The reference to historical aspect, was owner occupied type of situation and it is your intent to return to that type of situation. Mr. Ward: Yes. Mr. Richards: What is the plan for the use of the cottages, what is the time period? Mr. Ward: I would like to use them year round. Our stall' is basically staying longer and the maintenance man stays all year. Mr. Richards: You will be the occupant of the main house? Mr. Ward: Yes I will be the occupant of the main house. . No comments from the audience. Mr. Ward: We think it will be an improvement to get the cottage back off the street. 3 Mr. Robertson: The property before us, prior to the petitioner's ownership, was owned by a public service agency. It was the main house and the two seasonal cottages were used, if my recollection is correct over the last 10-15-20 years, for summer residency and supervision of adults with handicaps. The main house was built over 100 years ago and over different periods of time it has been used as a year round house but the cottages have never had any use other then seasonal use. My problem, very serious problem, for this Board to create use in two summer cottages in effect puts 3 year round houses on one lot. This is the same problem we had last meeting when cottages became motels which became year round units. It has been consistently this position of this board that we have never allowed seasonal use residential structures, be cottages or motels, to become year round houses. Moving them I have no problem with, making cottage A large enough for two people to move around in, I have no problem with that. (tape over) Three year round residential houses on this lot I won't vote for. Mr. Igoe: I would agree with you also. I don't think it is the purpose and intent for the people of the Town of Yarmouth to allow 3 year round structures on that lot, that is the reason we have minimum lot requirements. I do agree, I don't have a problem moving the cottage away from the street or with the little expansion on what would be the 13A. I suggest we consider limiting the amount of use per year for the cottages, for instance 40 weeks, like we did with the last petition. He is using this for employee housing, it is not all year round employee housing. Mr. Ward: The maintenance fellow is with me all year round. I would Ile to call your attention . that under the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Town of Yarmouth has a commitment, gets money from the state, and the zoning board of appeals adopted the model local rules and guidelines for the creation of housing. This is one of the things that we are lacking in the town, these units are needed in the community. You have to take into consideration, the direction we need to go, we need housing in this community, the state has given us the mandate for housing. Mrs. Moudouris: That is affordable housing, 40B. The state actually gives money to the town for affordable housing units. Mr. Ward: It also says moderate income too. , Mr. Igoe: That is a procedure through 40B. But for purposes of what you are trying to do tonight, .. Mr. Ward: The local comprehensive plan also includes this. There has to be a direction we take in this town. We are going to loss our working staff. Mr. Robertson: To accomplish what you are stating, which I happen to agree with, you need to change the zoning bylaw. We can't sit here and write zoning. That is done on town meeting floor. We have not got the right under this bylaw to be changing seasonal use residential structures to year round structures. Mr. Ward: I agree we need some changes, if we can move the cottages and use them for the employees for the summer then we will take that step. If we can have something from this Board to say, start the process; certainly I work with GPC and Rte. 28 Task Force, so we can start the process for changes. 4 Mr. Robertson: The issue comes up tonight on seasonal use of residential structure pre-existing zoning. It came up last meeting, but it's come up consistently over the last 10-20 years and we have always had the same problem, the zoning bylaw doesn't allow us to do this. Mr. Ward: I agree with you. Mr. Robertson: It is town meetings place if they want to allow seasonal cottages to become year round residential structures to vote a section in the bylaw saying such. Mrs. Moudouris: The last petition we had, the second week of December through the last week of February with no occupancy, basically no winter occupancy. Mr. Robertson: These cottages were used in July and August, historically. Mr. Ward: There is evidence of a wall heater when the store was there. Mrs. Moudouris: What type of heating are you proposing once they are moved? Mr. Ward: Electric. Lice a wall unit with supplementary baseboards. Mrs. Moudouris: I would have to agree with everyone about the seasonal use, I would be willing to extend the length of time, not just summer, April to October or something lice that. I don't think it is a remedy for affordable housing to have a two room cottage with electric heat on a year round basis on a lot that is undersized for 3 houses. Moving the cottages is a great idea and we would accommodate as many months we feel we can. Mr. Neitz: I agree that having 3 year round structures on 26,000 square feet of land with is considerably smaller then the 40,000 square feet required today. I can't help but draw some parallel to the South Sea Avenue condominiums that are constantly before use seeking to enclose a porch, to make additional living space in those seasonal cottages and they have been consistently have been denied. They are technically condominiums but they are still multi units on one piece of land. This is kind of a miniature of that situation. I think there has been a fair degree of consistency on the part of this board in denying the expansion of those cottages, just for the purposes that we talked about tonight. Mr. Robertson: Cottage A, the proposed addition 12' x 16', when you add that to what ever is there what do you get? Mr. Ward: A one bedroom, living room, bath and kitchen. Just a little more comfortable living condition. Mr. Robertson: It comes out about the same size as cottage b? Mr. Ward: Right. Mr. Robertson: You propose a deck addition to B, you turn the deck in to a patio you don't need permission from anybody. E Mr. Ward: The purpose for the foundation is to get ventilation we have to be at least 8" out of the grade with puts an awkward step when you come out. If we could get a deck we prefer a deck. Mr. Robertson: A deck needs a building permit, patio is not considered an addition of additional space, a deck is. Going back to what Mr. Igoe was saying. Functionally cottage A doesn't work very well for anything except just for sleeping and leave immediately. Cottage B is a one bedroom, kitchen, bath and living area. Mrs. Moudouris: To be used for the same way. Mr. Robertson: I have Dick's reservation about allowing an enlargement of a pre-existing non- conforming cottage. But, it is a cottage that is not functional, as it exists. I'm ...to allow the addition of space to A, but get rid of the deck on B. It gets A off the street, makes both of them functional in the present economy. It would be my suggestion we restrict the use from April to October, which would accommodate the petitioner in terms of using them for help at his motel. Those are the months the motel needs the help the most. Mrs. Moudouris: The deck is not a problem as long as we make it clear that it is not to become livable space. Mr. Robertson: Two weeks we had 38 motel units reduced to 10 and now they all have kitchens in them I have been around for a long time and every time I don't' at least say, you have to weld the door shut. It you don't weld it shut?? Mr. Robertson: Renovations at night and on the weekend still goes on. I have no problem with putting an addition on Cottage A to make it functional, the deck I wouldn't vote for. A patio serves the same function and you don't need permission or a permit. Mr. Igoe: I m 'on to allow cottage 31A moved to the present site of 31B, as shown on the plan e ' ' to the d hat is shown on the proposed plan, limit the use of those two cottages from April 1 to October 30, allow the addition to 31A as shown on the plan. Mrs. Moudouris: Why don't we go to Nov. 1". Mr. Igoe: Yes, April 1 to Nov 1. Mr. Robertson: Second. Vote: Passed unanimously in favor. Mr. Igoe: Moved we deny the Variance as requested. Mr. Robertson: Second. Mr. Igoe: It is not applicable not any authority to grant A3. Vote passed unanimously in favor. 0 TOWN OF YARMOUTH planning 1146 ROUTE 28 SOUTH YARMOUTH MASSACHUSETTS 02664-24451 Board Telephone (508) 398-2231 cxt. 275, Fax (508) 398-2365 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Appeals RECEIVED From: Brad Goodwin, Chairman MAY __ 2003 Planning Board TOWN OF YARMOUTH Date: May 8, 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS Subject: Appeal # 3824, Peter H. and Patricia E. Ward The Planning Board discussed the above referenced petition at their regular meeting of May 7, 2003. While the Board is not opposed to the applicants' plan to relocate and expand the two cottages, it is opposed to requested variance that would allow any buildings on the site to be used for multi family housing. TOWN OF YARMOUTH 1146 ROUTE 28 SOUTH YARMOUTH MASSACHUSE M 026644451 Telephone (508) 39&2231, ExG 285 — BOARD OF APPEALS Fax (508) 398.2365RECEIVED C C c' V E D 0 G G'03M 24 Pt42:18 AGREEMENT FOR EXTENSION - TOIYN CLERK & TREASURER SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA The Petitioner understands fully that a public hearing can not be held within 65 days of the filing of this Application. Further, the petitioner agrees to extend the time frames within which both hearing and decision are to be made by the Yarmouth Board of Appeals. . Applicant-. OR&y (i Jci rJ, Application filing date: Hearing Date: MaH '1 � Date: etitioner or Agent for Petitioner M. G. L. 40A CAMy Files\Documents\HearingExtensionAgremnt.wpd O,y a.1 Printed on Recycled PaiW