Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 07/29/22Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes RECEIVED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE July 19, 2022 1011 SEP I U A II: 33 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B af�AN S F I E L D Virtually Using GoToWebinarPlatformMASSACHUSETTS Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Philip Shannon; Eric Correira; Ryan Maxwell, Associate and Matthew List, Associate Nadine DePillo, Administrative Secretary Absent: Matthew Cummings. Application of Frank & Keith Signoriello Ltd. Partnership & Benjamin for a Variance requested from Schedule Section 4.2A Density and Dimensional Regulations Note 2. Scenic Road Front Yard Setback 75 feet; to raze and build new house within the required minimum Front Yard Setback of 52 and 53 feet where 75 feet is required at 881-889 Maple Street (Assessor's Map/Parcel 40/91&171 in Residential 1 (RI) zone. Attorney Nicholas J. Ricco of the Law Office of Nicholas J. Riccio and applicant Frank Signoriello were present. Keith Signoriello did not attend. Frank & Keith Signoriello operate and own C&S Insurance Company on Chauncey Street, Mansfield for the past 60 years and took the business over from their parents. The property has been in the family for over forty (40) years. Applicants Frank & Keith Signoriello are seeking a variance on only two lots that need to meet requisite area, frontage and lot width. Atty Riccio indicated on the plot plan that there were originally six (6) lots. Atty Riccio said the Bylaws changed to require 200 feet of frontage and 60,000 square feet, and the lots were reformatted into three (3) separate lots. Atty Riccio indicated that the lots are all buildable; each property has over 60,000 square feet, over 200 feet of frontage, and the lot width required to build. Atty Riccio and Mr. Signoriello are asking for relief from the setback. In the RI Zone, the typical setback is 40 feet, however, because Maple street is designated a scenic road, a 75-foot setback is required. Applicants Frank & Keith Signoriello are proposing a setback of 53 feet on 881 Maple Street and 52 feet on 889 Maple Street. This is the only relief they are seeking, as the Form A Plan is endorsed by the Planning Board and has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds. All 3 of these lots have been perc tested and passed by the Board of Health. They have septic designs ready if they are successful tonight, and their next step will be Mansfield Conservation. Atty Riccio will be working closely with Katelyn Gonyer, Conservation and Environmental Planner in these designs. Most of the existing dwellings on Maple Street were built before it was designated a ZBA Meeting Minutes —July 19, 2022 Page 1 of 6 scenic road, and the majority of houses do not meet the 75-foot setback requirement of scenic roads. On the plans there is an existing dwelling with 52-foot setback. It is in poor condition; they are looking to raze the structure and put the new construction there at roughly the same location. The Applicants are looking only to disturb the previously disturbed areas. The house is actually 100 feet fiom the edge of the pavement, which meets the intent and spirit of the Bylaws even with the 52 feet. The reason for the variance is that they are attempting to disturb the least amount of land and utilize previously disturbed areas with new construction. Arty Riccio indicated that dwellings could be constructed by right. The buildings would be much further back on these lots and further back means long drive ways which mean more run- off that could impact the wetland and habitat areas. The new construction will drastically reduce the length of the driveways and run-off. Atty Riccio said the minimum environmental impact is a much better solution. They have discussed this filing in detail with Katelyn Gonyer, Conservation and Environmental Planner, who wrote a memo that supports the variance petition and the project as they have designed. Public Comment There were no public comments. Board Comment Ms.; Garber -Miller appointed alternate Matthew List as voting member for the hearings. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if lot 3 is a part of the variance request. Mr. List asked whether on lot 4 address 881 Maple Street is there anything there now, and is the issue if you placed the house further back? Would you run into that isolated wetland that is almost dead center in the lot? On lot 2, which is 889 Maple Street is the idea to avoid construction on the other side of the intermittent stream. Ryan Maxwell wanted to know if it was originally 6 lots, and was it reconfigured or were the lots just merged together to make the 3 lots and when was it reconfigured can you recall? Arty Riccio replied that lot 2 and 4 of the plans are in discussion today. Applicants Frank and Keith Signoriello would like to put a new house where the existing dwelling is. With Lot 3 due to the wetland they had to push the house back. Atty Riccio responded to Mr. Maxwell by indicating that under the older zoning bylaws there were 6 lots, and they reconfigured them. The older Zoning Bylaws in Mansfield allowed lots of 30,000 square feet, and 120 feet of frontage; then it increased to 45,000 square feet and 150 feet of frontage, and finally to 200 feet of frontage and 60,000 square feet. These lots comply with the current day Zoning Bylaw except for the scenic road setback. If it wasn't a scenic road it would actually comply in all respects. Atty Riccio responded that it was reconfigured this past year in 2021. The plan is on record at the Registry of Deeds. Atty Riccio indicated the Applicants were trying to be environmentally sensitive in making a shorter driveway, due to the wetlands and the intermittent stream. ZBA Meeting Minutes -July 19, 2022 Page 2 of 6 The Board confirmed that there should be a variance for each lot. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the public hearing Discussion Board discussion ensued for a variance for each lot at 881-889 Maple Street. Ms. Garber -Miller said with the wet lands on this property it would be preferable to keep it in the largest dry area versus trying to place it all the way in the back. Ms. Garber -Miller said in that area there are a number of other houses that are a lot closer than 75 feet. Right across the street is a large house that is much closer than 75 feet. Especially given the shape of the lots and the location of the various wetland areas a shorter setback makes sense. Ms. Garber -Miller also indicated that there is a stream and if the house was further back there may be flooding. Mr. List did not have any further comments. Mr. Shannon said it would only be an improvement. Ms. Pruitt did not have any further comments. Mr. Maxwell did not have any further comments. Mr. Correira did not have any further comments. Motion: To approve the application for a variance for Section 4.2A 75-foot setback on a scenic road at 881 Maple Street Lot 4 per the plan. (Pruitt/Shannon) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To approve the application for a variance for Section 4.2A75-foot setback on a scenic road at 889 Maple Street Lot 2 per the plan. (Pruitt/Shannon) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Application of Benjamin Goldfreni & Melinda Tarsi for a Finding requested from Schedule Section 7.2 B (4) Alteration of a preexisting nonconforming residential structure at 275 Ware Street (Assessor's Map/Parcel 32/49 in Industrial (I1) zone. The architect and builder Shawn Barrett are representing the applicants Benjamin Goldfieni & Melinda Tarsi. The architect Shawn Barrett is seeking a finding to expand by adding two additions on the home on Ware Street. The lot is pre-existing, nonconforming for frontage and ZBA Meeting Minutes —July 19, 2022 Page 3 of 6 area and additions would conform to all of the required setbacks for Zoning because it is a grandfathered lot, the side yard is a different setback. Public Comment There were no public comments. Board Comment Ms. Garber -Miller appointed alternate Ryan Maxwell as voting member for the -this hearings. Ms. Garber -Miller had some concerns about whether or not this is a finding and why is this a grandfathered lot. Ms. Garber -Miller was confused with the response of Shawn Barrett regarding whether the property was a finding. The house was constructed in 1969 and subject to the 15-foot side yard setback requirement. Ms. Garber -Miller had concerns about the pre- existing nonconforming lot. The applicant filed for frontage and area and it complies with the side yard setback in an RI Zone presently. Ms. Garber -Miller said the new nonconformity is the setback that they comply with, so why it is not a variance? Ms. Garber Miller asked if it is a grandfathered lot you would not need to be here because it is showing that you have 15 feet. As it stands now they have the proper amount for an RI Zone, proper side yard setbacks on either side, the applicants have the proper front yard setback and they no longer have the proper square footage because it is located in Rl Zone which is the new area requirement is 60,0000 square feet. Shawn Barrett responded to Ms. Garber -Miller regarding her question regarding the lot being grandfathered and he was informed by Michael Trowbridge, the surveyor, informed his client they could go to a 15-foot yard setback. Mr. Barrett also had correspondence from Priscilla McGill the Planning Board secretary dated May 23, 2022 who referenced the setbacks of the agricultural zone from when the house was built in 1969. lvfr. Barrett said to do any expansion of the property would require a finding. It is 48,000 square feet. Mr. Barrett responded to Mr. List regarding why the addition is going on one side of the house and not the other. The location of the septic system is preventing them from expanding out the driveway side and the leaching field takes up that entire side of the property. Mr. Barrett responded to Mr. List's question regarding what was behind the house which Mr. Barrett indicated that there is an above ground swimming pool and further back is conservation. Mr. List asked since it is not 60,000 square feet, and it is pre-existing nonconforming by frontage and size and size of the lot. Section 230 4.1 G would grant the 15-foot side yard setback. Mr. List said the location in the RI, R2, & R3 Zone were split off in the old agricultural zone. Mr. List wanted to know why the addition is going on that side of the house. Mr. List wanted to know what is behind the house since the septic is off to the left side of the home. Mr. Maxwell stated he was confused because the finding is to alter a non -conforming structure they have a non -conforming lot. Mr. Maxwell is concerned if they qualify for a finding in the ZBA Meeting Minutes —July 19, 2022 Page 4 of 6 old agricultural zone. Mr. Maxwell had a question about the addition, he asked on the floor plans if it has a couple offices in the basement. Is this a Covid-19 change necessitating work from home situation. Ms. Tarsi responded to Mr. Maxwell by responding yes there is a couple of offices in the basement where she works from home as a Professor and does a lot of online teaching where she needs to close the office door for lectures. The Board confirmed that Section 230 4.1 G is considered a finding Ms. Garber- Miller closed the public hearing Motion: That the request for a Finding at 275 Ware Street in the RI Zone is an increase of the preexisting nonconforming condition. (Pruitt/Maxwell) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: That the increase in the preexisting nonconforming condition per the plan of 275 Ware Street is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. (Pruitt/Maxwell) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES ZBA Meeting Minutes —July 19, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Signature of Clerk ZBA Meeting Minutes — July 19, 2022 Page 6 of 6