Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 11/09/2021Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes RECFNED November 9, 2021 , _1� .il J OFFICE "HYBRID" MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOMS 3"AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFOI{ FEB -2 Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Eric Ciiireir ; Cummings; Matthew List, Associate g Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Philip Shannon and Ryan Maxwell, Associate Application of Dennis MacDonald for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-1.5, Definitions, Lot Width, for the creation of a lot with less than the required lot width at Rear Bird Road/0 Homefield Drive (Assessor's Map 39, Parcels 24 & 386) in the Residential 1 (Rl) zone. Owner Dennis MacDonald and Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, were present for the hearing continued from September 21, 2021. Ms. Garber -Miller read the hearing notice. Mr. Cygawnoski distributed revised plans and stated that his client is seeking a variance for the required building box at the front line of the street where they can fit the building box about eighty feet back from the road, but not at the road. The distributed plans show what the proposed build would. The plans also showed that the remainder of the land being 4.3 acres that runs behind the existing houses off Elyse Road, would be designated as a not buildable lot to be kept in Mr. McDonald's ownership. He stated that if the abutters would like to acquire a portion of the land so they could extend their lots approximately an additional 100-feet, they could speak with Mr. McDonald. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that if there is no interest in the land, it could go to the NRT Resource Trust for Mansfield Conservation. There is no intention to use the area as a building lot and would be marked as such on the recorded plan if the variance is granted. Mr. Cygawnoski further explained the proposed one -lot house sub -division plan and that it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood that what currently exists. The proposed driveway would be approximately 150-feet from the intersections of Elyse Road and Homefield Drive, where the Town of Mansfield's by-law requires a 50-foot minimum. He noted previous concerns for a bus stop at the intersection and expressed that 150-feet is a reasonable distance to people waiting at the intersection for the bus. He addressed the previously agreed to buffer zones which are noted on the proposed plan, which would be written into a deed that no trees or underbrush to be cleared for the existing sight lines to remain as they currently are. The driveway would be a typical 12-foot wide running back to the house, which is proposed to be a single-family house with two -car garage similar to the existing houses in the neighborhood. The buildable area would be approximately two acres, where 60,000 square feet is all the is required per the bylaws, not including the wetlands or the proposed buffer zones. Mr. Cygawnoski referenced the submitted alternative proposal plan for a sub -division, which is not desired, but could be considered if the variance is denied. The alternative proposal, which would also require approval of the Planning Board, is a two -lot subdivision with cooperation of ZBA Meeting Minutes — 11/9/21 Page 1 of 5 the two neighbors on Bird Road to acquire land to make two usable lots in a cluster sub -division located in the same area as the proposed single-family house. The land on Bird Road is separated by approximately 500-feet of wetlands. Board Comment No comment at this time. Public Comment Tom Houston, Engineer/Planner, whose firm has been engaged by the Kanes of 92 Elise Rd. Mr. Houston recapped his previously submitted report, noting the four main criteria in order for a variance to be met and expressed his opinion that the application does not meet any of the criteria and failed to demonstrate relief of topography, substantial hardship, desirable relief without substantial detriment to the public good, and cannot prove derogation from the intent and purpose of the bylaw. Mr. Houston referenced previous testimony that since the applicant pays taxes, the applicant should be allowed to develop the land. He then referenced the taxes paid on the two parcels of land with the assertion that the Town considers the land undevelopable due to very low tax payments. Mr. Houston concluded that his client purchased their property relying on the protections afforded by town regulations of the zoning bylaw and would suffer hardship if the variance is granted. Charles McPherson, 43 Patty's Rd. expressed opposition to the application for variance due to the substantial changes in frontage, which do not meet current bylaw requirements. Laurie Cremmen, 25 Donald Allen Dr., expressed opposition to the application. Joey Tryon, 6 Homefield Dr., referenced the 50-foot required buffer and expressed concern with the potential 2-lot subdivision. Timothy Kane, 92 Elyse Rd, expressed opposition to the application due to the lack of frontage required and that in his opinion, they do not meet the required conditions for a variance. Matthew Shurtleff, 12 Homefield Dr., stated that upon purchase of his property, he was told that the land in question was non -buildable and that the variance would negatively affect multiple existing homes. He further referenced a 50-foot slope variance with would impact his property if changed and further expressed opposition the variance request. Adria McPherson, 43 Patty's Rd, expressed opposition to the application, and noted that the application requires access through property that the applicant does not currently own. Ms. McPherson expressed concern that the applicant is seeking a variance before purchase of the land for access. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that the land owners have a verbal agreement for the applicant to purchase land in order to acquire access to the property and conditions for land purchase could be added to the variance decision. ZBA Meeting Minutes—11/9/21 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Garber -Miller noted that if the variance is not granted, the applicant reserves the right to the alternative proposal for a two -lot subdivision. Ms. McPherson expressed concern with either option since the property is landlocked. John Hallgren, 84 Elyse Rd, expressed opposition to the variance and inquired why the buffer is less for a two -lot subdivision versus a single home. Ms. Garber -Miller explained that the alternative proposal is for a two -lot cluster sub -division where the buffer requirements are less and approval of the Planning Board would be required under a separate application. Jennifer Kane, 92 Elyse Rd., expressed opposition to the variance and inquired if the board would be taking the two -lot subdivision into consideration for the current application, to which Ms. Garber -Miller stated that the board would be only considering the application before them. Ms. Kane expressed concern for future potential building if the land is combined. Dennis MacDonald, applicant, spoke of the history of this family -owned property, with previous takings by the Town such as a wetlands easement to the Town in exchange of a right-of-way at the back of the property. He further expressed concern with abutters opposition to what he would do on his own land and that by right he could cut all the trees down, but does not want to and only wants to build a single home. Julie Shurtleff, 12 Homefield Dr., expressed opposition to the lack of frontage and the proposed house directly behind her property as the applicant's property is a treed lot and purchased her home as such six years prior and would lose privacy. Charles McPherson, 43 Patty's Rd., expressed his opinion that the previous granting of an easement to the Town has no bearing on the current variance application. Mr. Cygawnoski confirmed that they applicant is seeking a variance for the building box and that the property does have the required 200-foot frontage at the street and that the width going back in the property does not meet current requirements. Timothy Kane, 92 Elyse Rd., expressed concern that the applicant is seeking a variance for less than half of the required 200-feet. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that frontage for older homes in the area fall under previous zoning bylaws which only required 150-feet of frontage, 45,000 square feet, and did not require a building box. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing. Motion: To approve for a variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-310(2)(a), to modify the pre-existing, non -conforming use and alter the pre-existing, non -conforming building at 26 Otis Street (Assessor's Map 7 Parcel 44) in the Business 3 (B3) zone in accordance with the revised plans. (Cummings -Pruitt) Mr. List confirmed that there are two lots in question, which are both unbuildable. He noted court case research for approved similar applications for dimensional hardship in which, upon appeal, the courts have then denied due to applicant seeking zoning relief for dimensional hardship by their own creation does not qualify for variance. He further noted the history of the ZBA Meeting Minutes—11/9/21 Page 3 of 5 applicant's property where it was previously split into two lots in the 90's, and referenced an Approval Not Required plan, signed by the Planning Board and Zoning Board, which noted that the land does not have access and is considered non -buildable, but which does reference a possible future land purchase to obtain frontage for the rear property. He further referenced that the applicant is seeking to combine his unbuildable lot with another unbuildable lot, which both owners previously made unbuildable by subdividing lots. Mr. List expressed his opinion that this application does not qualify for variance under Ch. 40A and that the hardship was self-inflicted. Ms. Garber -Miller noted prior similar applications where entire sub -divisions were created and left unbuildable lots with narrow access. She further noted that the building box bylaw is relatively recent. She referenced prior comments for the smaller piece of the Zola lot that abuts Homefreld Dr. and Elyse Rd. which was supposed to be attached to a piece of land and was not. Mr. Cummings agreed that there are other leftover lots, but not where an owner purchases another piece of land to conform. Ms. Garber -Miller expressed her view that this does not seem problematic that from the Town's perspective if you could have a buildable lot, which generates tax revenue. She further expressed her opinion that she did not believe that the applicant's intent is to build multiple houses, but to only build one house with the purchase of land for access. She referenced the lots has adequate frontage, acreage, and 35-feet on either side, but does not have the 200-feet going back, and that the bylaw for building box came into effect after this lot was created. Discussion ensued regarding abutting property lots in reference to the applicant's property for soil, shape, and topography. Mr. Correira noted that the neighbors run the risk of a road being put in and that the applicant put forth a compromise, but it is not the Boards' job to weigh in on the options. Mr. Cummings reiterated his opinion that this does not qualify for Ch. 40A because the lot was the owners own creation. Motion: Three (3) in favor, Two (2) opposed, Zero (0) abstentions. FAILS Ms. Garber -Miller noted, in response to applicant's question, that a vote for variance approval requires a super -majority of four of five members. Minutes October 19, 2021 Motion: To approve the October 19, 2021 minutes as presented (List -Cummings) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1-Correira) abstentions. PASSES ZBA Meeting Minutes — 11/9/21 Page 4 of 5 Next "Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings: January 18, 2021 at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Garber -Miller noted that reorganization of the board would take place at the next meeting and and inquired if the board would agree to move the meeting to January 25`h, since the 17Ih is a holiday, to which all members agreed. Motion: To adjourn at 8:35 p.m. (Pruitt -Cummings) Five (5) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Signature of Clerk Date of Approval ; `.I ZBA Meeting Minutes—11/9/21 Page 5 of 5