Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 May 23 - Board of Appeals Decision #3745 � TOWN OF YARMOUTA o�"Y9R� BOARD OF APPEALS Y�(�MOUTH ; o'� � y DECISION TOV���1�! �'f.�ERK � �.;-r� ., , $ �°`°�<���°��`� �Q)? MdY 23 P� t= 57 REC�iv�C� FILED WITH TOWN CLERK; May 23, 2002 PETITION NO: #3745 Q � � (�s � N/ �S � HEARING DATE: Apri125,2002 MAY � 4 2002 PETITIONER: Giardiue's��r°'�'ewver;Ittc.' HEALTH DEPT. PROPERTY: 242 Route 28, West Yar►nout6 Map: 37 Parcei: 149, (31/XS) Zoning District: B2 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, John Richards, Diane Moudoaris, James Robertson, Sean Igoe. It appearing that notice of said heazing 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 heazing was opened and held on the date stated above. The petitioner seeks a Special Permit to e�and a pre-e�sting non-conforming commercial building, so as to add a lfi' x. 10'>-ti�k' to the front of the structure. The building is non-conformn�g only as to its westerly side yazd set back. The proposed deck would be accessible only from within the restaurant, and would be used only by epsting patrons. This azea is intended as a so-called smokers-deck, to be used by persons who wish tQ> ide the restaurant. No food or drnilcs will be served on the deck. No additional parking will be added to the site, because this is not a separate customer area, but jus[ an area of use by eacisting patrons. Therefore, even though the space theoreticaliy increases the occupancy load for the building, in fact no increase in occupancy is intended, anricipated or requested. No opposition to the petition was received by the Board. However, the Planning Boazd did recommend an upgrade to the pazking lot, due to the resuking increase in pazking demand. The Boazd finds that, in fact, there will not be any measurable increase in parking demand or occupancy, provided the deck is utilized as represented. The Building Conunissioner aLso notes that the site has more existing pazldng then the increased theoretical occupancy would require. Under the circumstances,the Boazd finds that a full site upgrade is not mandated. However, the deck will cause the elimination of two (2) non-conforming parking spaces in front of the building. The removal of these two spaces is, itsel� a positive improvement, provided effective steps aze taken to prevent unintended pazldxig in the azea. The Board therefore finds that the area of the two eliminated spaces should be replaced with a raised or bermed planting azea, with some signage to avoid pazking in front ofthe new deck. -1- A motion was made by Mr, Richards, seconded by Mr. Igoe, to grant the Special Pernut to construct the smoker's deck, as proposed, to be accessible only from within the restaurant and to be used, as represented, by existing patrons, on the condition that; 1. there be no food or drink service on the deck, 2. the two pazking spaces in front of the deck be eliminated and replaced with a raised or bermed planting and landscaping azea, extending not less then 6' out from the deck, and planted with landscaping material compatible with those in the existing buffers on the site, and 3. the petitioner provide an appropriate sign to avoid patrons from pazking in the area of the former spaces being eliminated. The eacact nature of the sign to be deternuned by the petitioner, provided that the petitioner shall be responsible to assure that the "no parldng"requuement is effectively enforced. T'he members voted unatvmously in favor of the motion,the Special Permit is therefore granted. No pernut shall issue until 20 days from the Sling 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 notice/decision with the Town Clerk. Urtless otherwise provided herein, the Special Pemut shall lapse if a substantiai use thereof has not begun withiu 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 c40A § 10) � � David S. Reid, Cler — ��� -2-