Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 09/15/2020V Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 15, 2020 MEETING HELD VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Matthew Cuminmgs, Eric Correira; Associate Members: Matthew List and Ryan Maxwell Guests: Steve Schoonveld, Yogesh Nain(10 Janet Lane), Paul J6dice(Contractor)-1 Joe Conlon, Kevin MCCue(I I Brookside Ave), Craig Cygawnoski(Engineer), Daniel Markt(152 Pratt Street), James and Maryanne Haught(11 Colonial Drive), Jeffrey Cohen and Gregory Cohen and Attorney Sander A. Rikleen(One Mansfield Avenue). The chair read the following notice: Whereas both the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health have advised residents to take extra measures to put distance between themselves and other people to further reduce the risk of being exposed to COVID-19, Governor Baker has issued an order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Massachusetts General Law c. 30A, §20. In order to satisfy the Open Meeting Law requirements, today's Town of Mansfield Planning Board meeting will available for to public via GOTOWehinar and Mansfield Cable. The instructions for joining via GoToWebinar are in the Meeting Notice on the Town's Website at www.mansfieldma.com and then clicking on today's date on the calendar. The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of uamet marm ana Kum rviami ror a Variance/Finding from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with an 18.1-foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required and Section 230-7.2B(4), Findings, for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre- existing, non -conforming structure with less than the required front yard setback at 152 Pratt (Assessor's Map 30 Parcel 8) in the Residential 2 (R2) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on August 28, 2020 and September 4, 2020; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on July 27, 2020 • "Zoning Plan 152 Pratt Street" dated July 10, 2020 and prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. List was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Homeowner Daniel Markt was present. Mr. Markt said they are proposing to add a living room and bedroom to their 100 year -old, pre- existing, non -conforming house. The house is on a corner lot, and the addition would be built at the back of the property, no closer to the street. Planning Board 1 9/15/2020 Board Comment Ms. Pruitt asked what would happen with the existing porch steps; Mr. Markt said there would be two to four steps in the same place. Public Comment The chair read the following statement: it is important to us that you have a platform for your questions and comments during this meeting, therefore to ask questions or make a public comment during tonight's virtual meeting you must have registered and joined the meeting via GoToWebinar where you now have the ability to submit your question or comments through the questions option in your control panel, or you can use the raise your hand option to be allowed to speak. For those who have joined the meeting via telephone who would like to ask a question or make a comment, you are now welcome to unmute your phone. We ask that you only have your phone unmuted while you are asking your question. Please mute when you are no longer live. you can unmute your phone by pushing *6. Please then state your name and address, and when acknowledge by the Chairperson you can then state your question or comment. When you are done with your comment please mute your phone again by pushing *6. As with any public hearing we ask you to be respectful of the Board members and the other residents who are making their comments by patiently and quietly waiting your turn. Thank you. There was no public comment. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: That the request for a Finding at 152 Pratt Street is an increase in the pre-existing, non- conforming condition. (Cummings -Pruitt) List — In favor Cummings —In favor Pruitt- In favor Correira — In favor Garber -Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Motion: That the increase in the pre-existing, non -conforming condition, in accordance with the "Zoning Plan 152 Pratt Street" dated July 10, 2020, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. (Cummings -Pruitt) List — In favor Cummings —In favor Pruitt -In favor Correira — In favor Garber -Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Planning Board 2 9/15/2020 The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of James anct Maryanne riaugnc ror a Variance/Finding from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with a 23.5-foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required at 11 Colonial Drive (Assessor's Map 41 Parcel 431) in the Residential 1 (RI) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on August 28, 2020 and September 4, 2020; Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on July 29, 2020 "Zoning Board Plan 11 Colonial Drive" dated July 17, 2020 and prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc.; Color rendering of existing house and addition. Mr. Ryan Maxwell was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Homeowners James and Maryanne Haught were present. Mr. Haught explained the proposal for an addition with a 23.5-foot sideyard setback, a 1.5-foot intrusion into the required 25-foot setback. Mr. Haught presented the plot plan and rendering of what the garage would look like. Board Comment There was no board comment. Public Comment The chair read the following statement: it is important to us that you have a platform for your questions and comments during this meeting, therefore to ask questions or make a public comment during tonight's virtual meeting you must have registered and joined the meeting via GoToWebinar where you now have the ability to submit your question or comments through the questions option in your control panel, or you can use the raise your hand option to be allowed to speak. For those who have joined the meeting via telephone who would like to ask a question or make a comment, you are now welcome to unmute your phone. We ask that you only have your phone unmuted while you are asking your question. Please mute when you are no longer live. You can unmute your phone by pushing *6. Please then state your name and address, and when acknowledge by the Chairperson you can then state your question or comment. When you are done with your comment please mute your phone again by pushing *6. As with any public hearing we ask you to be respectful of the Board members and the other residents who are making their comments by patiently and quietly waiting your turn. Thank you. There was no public comment. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Planning Board 3 9/15/2020 Motion: To approve the application of James and Maryanne Haught for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with a 23.5- foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required at 11 Colonial Drive (Assessor's Map 41 Parcel 431) in the Residential 1 (RI) zone. (Cummings -Pruitt) Maxwell — In favor Cummings —In favor Pruitt- In favor Correira — In favor Garber- Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of Yogesh and Shobhna Nain for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of a porch with a 28.9-foot front yard setback where 40 feet is required at 10 Janet Lane (Assessor's Map 13 Parcel 72) in the Residential I (RI) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on August 28, 2020 and September 4, 2020; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on August 13, 2020 "Proposed House Addition at No. 10 Janet Lane Mansfield, MA' dated August 13, 2020 and revised September 10, 2020, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Maxwell was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Homeowners Yogesh and Shobhna Nain and Paul Jodice, Jodice and Sons, were present. Mr. Nain explained the proposal for a seven- to eight -foot wide front porch, which would result in a 31.1-foot front yard setback where 40 feet is required. Mr. Jodice explained the stairs only need to go to the farmers' porch, not to the landing, and presented the rendering. Board Comment The board members agreed that aesthetically and cosmetically, the addition of the porch would look nice for the house and the neighborhood. Public Comment The chair read the following statement: it is important to us that you have a platform for your questions and comments during this meeting, therefore to ask questions or make a public comment during tonight's virtual meeting you must have registered and joined the meeting via GoToWebinar where you now have the ability to submit your question or comments through the questions option in your control panel, or you can use the raise your hand option to be allowed to speak. Planning Board 4 9/15/2020 For those who have joined the meeting via telephone who would like to ask a question or make a comment, you are now welcome to unmute your phone. We ask that you only have your phone unmuted while you are asking your question. Please mute when you are no longer live. You can unmute your phone by pushing *6. Please then state your name and address, and when acknowledge by the Chairperson you can then state your question or comment. When you are done with your comment please mute your phone again by pushing *6. As with any public hearing we ask you to be respectful of the Board members and the other residents who are making their comments by patiently and quietly waiting your turn. Thank you. Joe Conlon, 9 Janet Lane, said they are in full support and think it looks gorgeous. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: To approve the petition of Yogesh and Shobhna Nain for a Variance from Zoning By - Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of a porch with a 31.1-foot front yard setback where 40 feet is required at 10 Janet Lane (Assessors Map 13, Parcel 72) in the Residential 1 (Rl) zone in accordance with the "Proposed House Addition at No. 10 Janet Lane Mansfield, MA" dated August 13, 2020, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. (Cummings - Pruitt) Correira — In favor Cummings —In favor Maxwell — In favor Pruitt- In favor. Garber- Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of Kevin and Cassie McCue for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of a shed with a 28.0-foot front yard setback where 40 feet is required; and from Section 230- 3.8(A)1, Accessory Uses, Yards and Coverage, to construct the shed in the front yard rather than the rear yard at 13 Brookside Road (Assessor's Map 13 Parcel 49) in the Residential I (R1) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on August 28, 2020 and September 4, 2020; Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on August 14, 2020 • "Proposed Accessory Building Relocation at No. 13 Brookside Road Mansfield, MA" dated August 13, 2020, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Maxwell was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Homeowners Kevin and Cassie McCue and Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, were present. Mr. McCue explained he had the property surveyed, and 50% is wetlands. He said it would be expensive to move the shed to the back of the property because that is where the electrical and Planning Board 5 9/15/2020 gas services are located. He said he would like to move the shed, which is currently up on pillars, straight 55 feet to the front yard and partially onto the driveway. He said the house offers no closet space and very little attic space. He said when he built the storage shed, he did not know it was within 25 feet of wetlands. Board Comment Ms. Garber -Miller asked what happened to the shed that was originally on the property, as the plan says "existing building location." Mr. McCue said he built the shed when he moved in to the house, but did not know it was within 25 feet of the wetlands. Mr. Maxwell asked how tall the shed is; Mr. McCue said is 16' x 20' x 20'. Mr. Maxwell asked if Mr. McCue has spoken with the Building Inspector about whether this is a shed or a garage. Mr. McCue's said it is not on a slab, it is on nine pillars, could not fit a car and is not a garage. He said if the variance were approved, he would apply for a building permit and work with the Building Inspector. Ms. Pruitt asked if there is a picture of the shed; Mr. McCue said he did not have a picture, but could provide one. He said the shed has a small set of stairs that go up approximately five feet. Mr. Maxwell asked if Mr. McCue looked in to placing the shed 40 feet off of the road. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that would be too close to the wetland buffer. Ms. Garber -Miller asked why the shed cannot be on the other side of the property; Mr. McCue's explained there are more wetlands on the other side. Public Comment The chair read the following statement: It is important to us that you have a platform for your questions and comments during this meeting, therefore to ask questions or make a public comment during tonight's virtual meeting you must have registered and joined the meeting via GoToWebinar where you now have the ability to submit your question or comments through the questions option in your control panel, or you can use the raise your hand option to be allowed to speak. For those who have joined the meeting via telephone who would like to ask a question or make a comment, you are now welcome to unmute your phone. We ask that you only have your phone unmuted while you are asking your question. Please mute when you are no longer live. You can unmute your phone by pushing *6. Please then state your name and address, and when acknowledge by the Chairperson you can then state your question or comment. When you are done with your comment please mute your phone again by pushing *6. As with any public hearing we ask you to be respectful of the Board members and the other residents who are making their comments by patiently and quietly waiting your turn. Thank you. The chair read correspondence in support of the variance from Jay Crawford, 12 Brookside Road; Eric Schwartz, 11 Brookside Road and Robert Wright and Richard Wright, 2 Carroll Road. Planning Board 6 9/15/2020 Stephen Holt, 8 Brookside Road, expressed his support; he said he does not think it would detract from the neighborhood and he feels that it enhances the ranch house look. Ms. Pruitt said the Zoning By -Law is specific about the location of accessory structures. Ms. Garber -Miller said that it is storage space, not living space, and she was concerned with the shed being in the front. She said she understands there is a patio, deck and pool in the backyard, and said there are not clear alternatives for the location of the shed. Mr. Maxwell asked about granting a variance from the requirement for the accessory structure to be ten feet from the house. Ms. Garber -Miller said that ten feet is there for emergency vehicles Mr. Correira asked if the board would have allowed this if the homeowner had come to the board prior to building the shed. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: To approve the petition of Kevin and Cassie McCue for a Variance from Zoning By - Law Section 230-4.2.A, Front Yard Setback, for the construction of a shed with a 28.0-foot front yard setback where 40 feet is required; and from Section 230-3.8(A)1, Accessory Uses, Yards and Coverage, to construct the shed in the front yard rather than the rear yard at 13 Brookside Road (Assessor's Map 13 Parcel 49) in the Residential 1 (R1) zone in accordance with the "Proposed Accessory Building Relocation at No. 13 Brookside Road" dated August 13, 2020, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. (Cummings -Pruitt) Pruitt- Opposed Maxwell - In favor Cummings —In favor Correira — Opposed Garber -Miller - Opposed Two (2) in favor. Three (3) opposed. Zgro (0) abstentions. FAILS The public hearing is the continuation of the appeal tiled by m ki mansneia, LLI, of me Planning Board's March 5, 2020 decision to deny a modification to the July 22, 2015 site plan/special granted for 1 Mansfield Avenue. The appeal is of the Planning Board's denial of the applicant's request to use approximately 4,582 square feet of the first floor of the building to provide tenant storage cubicles, a fitness facility that includes an area to congregate, and a conference/party/office room that can be rented by tenants, and an area for tenant meetings. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • September 11, 2020 letter from Attorney Rikleen Mr. List was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Planning Board 9/15/2020 Attorney Sander A. Rikleen and property owners Jeffrey Cohen and Gregory Cohen, MCG Mansfield, LLC were present. Attorney Rikleen said there is a property across the North Common from this site [300 North Main Street] for which the Planning Board approved the same type of first -floor uses proposed at One Mansfield Avenue. He explained his client purchased the property from the original developer, Crugnale Properties, and has tried to rent the first floor space for traditional retail. They then proposed the alternative uses for that space, which the Planning Board denied, resulting in this appeal. Public Comment The chair read the following statement: It is important to us that you have a platform for your questions and comments during this meeting, therefore to ask questions or make a public comment during tonight's virtual meeting you must have registered and joined the meeting via GoToWebinar where you now have the ability to submit your question or comments through the questions option in your control panel, or you can use the raise your hand option to be allowed to speak. For those who have joined the meeting via telephone who would like to ask a question or make a comment, you are now welcome to unmute your phone. We ask that you only have your phone unmuted while you are asking your question. Please mute when you are no longer live. You can unmute your phone by pushing *6. Please then state your name and address, and when acknowledge by the Chairperson you can then state your question or comment. When you are done with your comment please mute your phone again by pushing *6. As with any public hearing we ask you to be respectful of the Board members and the other residents who are making their comments by patiently and quietly waiting your turn. Thank you. Steve Schoonveld, 21 Newton Street, said he appreciates the members looking into this and said he has four concerns, including: 1.) The new owners of One Mansfield Avenue are asking for the same thing as the North Main/Thomas Street development being built by Crugnale Properties across the street, but which he feels is different because One Mansfield is front facing, whereas the Crugnale building faces the back. He said he feels One Mansfield has better retail exposure; 2.) the current owners knew there was no parking when they purchased the property, but he said there is plenty public parking; 3.) the owners have tried to rent the space using national commercial realtors, and suggested they look for local realtors; and 4.) the pandemic will be over and the owners should look to the future. He said Mansfield has not lost restaurants during the pandemic, while other cities and town have. He said Mansfield should make sure this space becomes retail, not residential. Attorney Rikleen said their appeal had nothing to do with Covid and was filed before the pandemic began. He said the nature of the appeal is really about what the by-law says, and said a site plan application cannot be denied, it can only be conditioned. He referred to his September 11, 2020 letter explaining why 2020 Annual Town Meeting Article 23 [which amended the definition of "Retail"] does not apply here. He said "Retail" appears under business uses, but this is a mixed -use development. Planning Board 8 9/15/2020 Attorney Rikleen said this property is in the same zoning district as 300 North Main Street across the street. He said there must be uniformity within the district and requested the ZBA overturn the Planning Board decision. Mr. Correira asked about 2020 Annual Town Meeting Article 23. Attorney Rikleen said during a discussion with Attorney Kim Saillant from town counsel's office about other aspects. of this case, they also discussed Article 23, which amended the Zoning By-Law's definition of "Retail." He said he and Attorney Saillant agreed that change to the by-law does not apply to this case. Attorney Rikleen explained they filed the ZBA appeal under the Site Plan section of the Planning Board's decision, and the court appeal under the Planning Board's Special Permit decision. Mr. List said he feels the owners' proposed uses for the first -floor are too residential and said he is not convinced they are retail or even mixed -use. He said he feels the proposal does not meet the underlying zoning for the building. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the board should ask for an opinion from the Building Inspector and/or Town Counsel about whether Article 23 applies to this situation and what the significant dates would be. Mr. Correira said he does not think it applies. In response to Attorney Rikleen's argument that the Planning Board acted improperly by denying Site Plan modification, Ms. Garber -Miller observed that the Planning Board appeared to have considered both parcels together (despite their being under separate sections of the By- laws) in granting the original application, and appeared to be considering the parcels as a whole once again. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: To approve the applicants' appeal of the Planning Board's March 5, 2020 denial of the applicant's request to use approximately 4,582 square feet of the first floor of the building to provide tenant storage cubicles, a fitness facility that includes an area to congregate, a conference/party/office room that can be rented by tenants, and an area for tenant meetings. (Cummings -Pruitt) Correira — In favor List — Opposed Cummings —Opposed Pruitt- Opposed Garber- Miller- Opposed One (1) in favor. Four (4) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. FAILS 7,,Correspondende and Minutes Minutes June 2, 2020 Motion: To approve the June 2, 2020 minutes as submitted (Cummings -Pruitt) List — in favor Cummings —In favor Pruitt- In favor. Planning Board 9 9/15/2020 Correira — In favor Garber- Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Minutes July 21, 2020 Motion: To approve the July 21, 2020 minutes as submitted (Cummings -Pruitt) List — in favor Cummings —In favor Pruitt- In favor. Correira — In favor Garber- Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 9:30 p.m. (Correira-Maxwell) List — In favor Cummings —In favor Pruitt- In favor Correira — In favor Garber- Miller- In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting: October 20, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. Signature of Clerk l to of App oval J Planning Board 10 9/15/2020