Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 06/16/2020V Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes June 16, 2020 MEETING HELD VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM „1. 7 I t ,- Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Matthew Cummings, Eric Correira; Matthew List, Associate Member Jennifer Davis, Planning Department Administrative Secretary 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 GoToWebinar and Mansfield Cable. The instructions for joining via GoToWebinar are in the Meeting Notice on the Town's Website at www.naansfieldma.com and then clicking on today's date on the calendar. The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of Catherine Fradenburg for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with an 18.5-foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required at 71 South Park Lane (Assessor's Map 2 Parcel 284) in the Residential 1 (Rl) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on May 29, 2020 and June 5, 2020; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 10, 2020 • "Zoning Plan 71 South Park Lane" dated January 4, 2020 and prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. List was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Homeowner Catherine Fradenburg and builder Paul Jodice were present. Mr. Jodice explained the request for a garage addition on the side of the house. They are asking for relief based on the shape of the lot; the front right corner of the proposed addition is on an angle because the lot is shaped like a parallelogram. The existing two car garage is 24 feet wide with two 12 foot wide bays, and Mr. Jodice said depending on the budget, the middle garage may be rebuilt to make it more symmetrical. Board Comment Ms, Garber -Miller asked if there is enough space for the addition to be shifted over; Mr. Jodice said there is not. He said they would like to center the middle bay in between the two existing bays. Planning Board 1 6/16/2020 Mr. Correira asked if the addition could be built toward the back of the house rather than the side; Mr. Jodice said there would not be room for a car to make that turn, and the septic system leaching field is right behind the existing garage. Public Comment The chair read the following notice: 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. Mr, Correira said even at the furthest point from the lot line, the setback is 24.9 feet; Mr. Jodice said that is correct. Mr. Correira said even if the lot line was parallel, they may still need a variance. Ms. Garber -Miller said the lot width definition requires a lot to be as wide as the frontage, but it can be a parallelogram with a 20-degree angle. Mr. Jodice said there is a landing with stairs in the garage, as well as a chimney, washer and dryer, which is common in a two-story colonial. He said the third bay would provide additional space for larger vehicle parking. Mr. Correira asked if the neighbors have any issues; Mr. Jodice said the owners have talked to their neighbors and they do not have any concerns. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of Caere LLC for Variances from Section 230-4.7 B(2)(a), Signs, of the Zoning By -Law to allow for four (4) wall signs and an existing monument sign as follows: the existing monument sign is to be reused; two (2) signs totaling 40.17 feet in length are proposed on the east (front) elevation where a 22.8 foot length sign is allowed; it is proposed that the allowed rear wall sign be divided and be placed instead on the north and south sides of the building, with the south side sign a proposed length of 17.7 feet and the north side sign a proposed length of 43.33 feet at 60 Oakland Street (Assessor's Map 19, Parcel 2) in the Industrial 3 (13) zone. Planning Board 2 6/16/2020 The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on May 29, 2020 and June 5, 2020; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 14, 2020 • Plan of "Proposed Sign Locations at No. 60 Oakland Street Mansfield, MA" dated February 13, 2020 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. List was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Frank Karpowlcz, architect, and Scott Sisson, general contractor, were present. Mr. Karpowicz explained the application for signs on the front and the back of the existing building. He said based on the length of the building, a total of 204 sf of signage would be allowed. He said they are proposing 71.35 square feet of signage, or 35% of the total signage allowed. He explained their proposal to break the allowed rear wall sign into two signs on the sides of the building. ,The length of the signage on the front is greater than allowed. Mr. Karpowicz said the building is entitled to one rear wall sign; rather than install that on the rear, they want to put signs on the two sides instead. The board discussed whether the Zoning By -Law section allowing a rear wall sign applies to the I3 zone. Ms. Garber -Miller said each of the five wall signs they are asking for all different things, and do not all include the name of the restaurant. She said she is uncomfortable with the variety of signs with extraneous information that are not necessary to identify the business. Mr. Sisson said the signs explain what the business does. Ms. Garber -Miller said they are allowed to have one sign on the front and one on the back; Mr. Sisson said the back is the railroad tracks. Ms. Garber -Miller asked why, if the ZBA allows the change from a rear wall sign to two side signs, they would not be the size allowed. Mr. Sisson said they would need relief from the size of the rear wall sign. Board Comment Ms. Pruitt said this proposal is for a lot of signs. Ms. Garber -Miller said there are not a lot of other restaurants in the area, so people will not be looking at a lot of different signs trying to locate this business. She said every business asking for sign relief says they are trying to brand themselves, and most do not get all the signs they want. She said it is not an issue of the town not wanting to support the businesses, but is about the number of size of the signs. Mr. Karpowicz said the new owners want the signage to be tasteful. Mr. Sisson showed the board a color rendering of the signage plan. Planning Board 3 6/16/2020 Mr. List said the building is close to Oakland Street and putting all the signage on the front wall would be a lot, so he understands why they propose to divided up the signs among three sides. Mr. Karpowicz said they would like to put the signs where people will see it. Mr. Karpowicz said the monument sign would be the same size as the existing monument sign and would be on the same pole. Public Comment The chair read the following notice: 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. The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of Jamie and John O'Leary for a Variance/Finding from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with an 7.7-foot sideyard setback where 15 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 49 Central Street (Assessor's Map 23 Parcel 149) in the Residential 3 (R3) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on May 29, 2020 and June 5, 2020; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 19, 2020 • "Zoning Plan 49 Central Street" dated October 28, 20190 and prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. List was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Planning Board 4 6/16/2020 Homeowner John O'Leary explained the application for an addition for an extra bedroom and bathroom; the addition would be built where the deck and bulkhead are currently located. Board Comment Ms. Garber -Miller asked if there will be 10 feet between the house and the existing garage. Mr. O'Leary said the addition would not extend beyond the existing footprint and will follow the line of the existing deck. 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. Pruitt asked about Ms. Garber -Millers concern about the house being ten feet from garage; Ms. Garber -Miller said it is unclear whether there is a ten -foot separation now. Mr. O'Leary said his neighbors are both in favor of this project and had been planning to attend the original March meeting in person. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. The chair read the public hearing notice on the application of Matt and Emily King for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with a 7.5-foot sideyard setback where 15 feet is required at 41 Riverside Drive (Assessor's Map 28 Parcel 128) in the Residential 2 (R2) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public bearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the [Mansfield] Journal -News Independent on May 29, 2020 and June 5, 2020; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 26, 2020 Planning Board 5 6/16/2020 • "Certified Plot Plan Located at 41 Riverside Drive" dated November 5, 2019 and prepared by Continental Land Survey, Inc. Mr. List was appointed a voting member for this public hearing. Homeowners Matt and Emily King explained the plan for a 26'x24' addition for a two -car garage with a 7.5-foot setback. The existing garage will be removed. Mr. King explained the existing driveway is wider than the proposed garage and is within five feet of the property line, and slopes significantly within a short section. They plan to eliminate that slope. Board Comment Ms. Pruitt asked the existing garage setback; Mr. King said it is 10 feet. Mr. Correira asked about putting the garage on the back of the house; Mr. King said they looked at that, but it would require significant reconfiguring of the lot. He said the lot abuts Cabot's Pond so that may also cause wetland issues. He said the most cost effective way would be to put the garage on the side, which he said would match neighboring houses. He said they plan to add a bedroom above the garage. 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. Gene Mastro, 37 Riverside Drive, said he abuts the sloped side of this property, and this would be an improvement, He said the slope and the pavement are now closer to his house than the proposed garage would be. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: To approve the application of Matt and Emily King for a Variance from Zoning By - Law Section 230-4.2,A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with a 7.5-foot sideyard setback where 15 feet is required at 41 Riverside Drive (Assessor's Map 28 Parcel 128) in the Residential 2 (112) zone. (Cummings -Pruitt) Planning Board 6 6/16/2020 Mr. Cummings asked if the slope issue is significant enough to be considered a hardship. Ms. Garber -Miller said there is a lot going on in this proposal, and noted the addition is two stories. She said she visited this site and there are not many houses in the neighborhood with two -car garages because the lots are narrow. Mr. Correira asked about the hardship. Mr. Cummings said it may be the slope. Ms. Garber -Miller said if the existing deck was not there and the garage was flipped, it might fit within the setback, She said the encroachment, at half the setback, is significant. Cummings - Opposed Correira - Opposed List- In favor Pruitt - Opposed Garber -Miller - Opposed One (1) in favor. Four (4) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. FAILS 49 Central Street Motion: That the request for a Finding at 49 Central Street is an increase in the pre-existing, non -conforming condition. (Cummings -Pruitt) Cummings - In favor Correira — In favor List - In favor Pruitt — 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 49 Central Street" dated October 28, 2019, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. (Cummings -Pruitt) Cummings - In favor Correira - In favor List - In favor Pruitt — In favor Garber -Miller — In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) Opposed. Zero (0) Abstentions. PASSES 60 Oakland Street Motion: To approve the variance application of Caere LLC for Variances from Section 230-4.7 B(2)(a), Signs, of the Zoning By -Law to allow for four (4) wall signs and an existing monument sign as follows: the existing monument sign is to be reused; two (2) signs totaling 40.17 feet in length are proposed on the east (front) elevation where a 22.8 foot length sign is allowed; it is Planning Board 7 6/16/2020 proposed that the allowed rear wall sign be divided and be placed instead on the north and south sides of the building, with the south side sign a proposed length of 17.7 feet and the north side sign a proposed length of 43.33 feet at 60 Oakland Street (Assessor's Map 19, Parcel 2) in the Industrial 3 (I3) zone. (Cummings -Pruitt) Ms. Pruitt said it is a lot of signage, but she felt better when she saw the color renderings. Mr. Cummings said the size of the lettering is not that large, so he is not bothered by it. Ms. Garber -Miller said she doesn't mind moving the allowed rear sign to the sides, but said her first reaction was that it is a lot of signs. She said the color rendering was helpful. Mr. List sad it the building is close to the street with parking on the north side, so it wouldn't make much sense to put all the signage on the front. He noted the proposed signage is only 75% of what is allowed. Mr. Cummings said the train tracks could be considered a way, with the signs visible to people on the commuter rail; Ms. Garber -Miller said there is no entrance to the site from that side. Ms. Pruitt said the signs will not be internally illuminated, so they will not disturb abutters. Cummings - In favor Correira - Opposed List - In favor Pruitt -- In favor Garber -Miller - Opposed Three (3) in favor. Two (2) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. FAILS 71 South Park Lane Motion: To approve the variance application of Catherine Fradenburg fora Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Side Yard Setback, for the construction of an addition with an 18.5-foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required at 71 South Park Lane (Assessor's Map 2 Parcel 284) in the Residential 1 (Rl) zone. (Cummings -Pruitt) Mr. Correira said he doesn't see a hardship. Ms. Garber -Miller said the lot complies with the lot width requirement and she doesn't see hardship that would justify a variance. Cummings - Opposed Correira - Opposed List - Opposed Pruitt - Opposed Garber -Miller - Opposed Zero (0) in favor. Five (5) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. FAILS Planning Board 8 6/16/2020 June 8, 2020 request from Marco Crugnale to withdraw the 10 & 30 Reservoir Street Pylon Sign Variance Motion: To allow the withdrawal of the 10 & 30 Reservoir Street Pylon Sign Variance without prejudice (Cummings -Pruitt) Cummings - In favor Correira — In favor List- In favor Pruitt —In favor Garber -Miller — In favor 30 Reservoir Street Lot Changes Variance in order to allow the application to be withdrawn. The four members who voted at the June 2, 2020 public hearing participated. Motion: To reconsider the June 2, 2020 vote to deny the application of Reservoir Landing, LLC for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2A, Density and Dimensional Regulations: Residential Districts, Lot Frontage, Lot Area, Lot Width and Minimum Open Space, for the creation of three separate lots within the approved site at 10 & 30 Reservoir Street [Map 36, Parcels I and 2 in the Industrial 1 (I1) zone. Lot 2A would require a variance to allow a lot size of 39,793 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required; to allow frontage of 41.63 feet where 200 feet is required; and to allow minimum open space of 2% where 30 percent is required. Lot 213 would require a variance to allow a lot size of 29,516 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required; to allow frontage of 67.98 feet where 200 feet is required; to allow a side setback of 14.5 feet where 20 feet is required; and to allow minimum open space of 2% where 30% is allowed. Lot 2C would require a variance to allow a lot size of 38,216 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required; to allow frontage of 152.19 feet where 200 feet is required; to allow a side setback of 15 feet where 20 feet is required; and to allow minimum open space of 2% where 30% is allowed in order to allow the applicant to withdrawn the Variance application (Cummings -Pruitt) Attorney Jack Jacoby explained Mr. Crugnale's computer froze during the June 2 public hearing and he intended to ask to withdraw the application, but by the time he got back in, the vote had been taken. Cummings - In favor Correira — In favor Pruitt —In favor Garber -Miller — In favor Four (4) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. PASSES Planning Board 9 6/16/2020 Motion: To allow the application of Reservoir Landing, LLC for a Variance from Zoning By - Law Section 230-4,2A, Density and Dimensional Regulations: Residential Districts, Lot Frontage, Lot Area, Lot Width and Minimum Open Space, for the creation of three separate lots within the approved site at 10 & 30 Reservoir Street [Map 36, Parcels I and 2 in the Industrial 1 (I1) zone. Lot 2A would require a variance to allow a lot size of 39,793 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required; to allow frontage of 41.63 feet where 200 feet is required; and to allow minimum open space of 2% where 30 percent is required. Lot 2B would require a variance to allow a lot size of 29,516 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required; to allow frontage of 67.98 feet where 200 feet is required; to allow a side setback of 14.5 feet where 20 feet is required; and to allow minimum open space of 2% where 30% is allowed. Lot 2C would require a variance to allow a lot size of 38,216 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required; to allow frontage of 152.19 feet where 200 feet is required; to allow a side setback of 15 feet where 20 feet is required; and to allow minimum open space of 2% where 30% is allowed to be withdrawn without meiudice. (Cummings -Pruitt) Ms, Pruitt said there were technical difficulties at that meeting Cummings - In favor Correira — In favor Pruitt — In favor Garber -Miller — In favor Four (4) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 9:35 p.m. Cummings - In favor Correira — In favor List -In favor Pruitt — In favor Garber -Miller — In favor Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting: July 21, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. Signature of Clerk Planning Board Date of Approval 10 6/16/2020