Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 09/13/2022Zoning Board of Appeals Mi RECEIVED ED � CLERKS OFFICE September 13, 2022 2011 NOV _ q A 9- 50 Meeting Held in Person in MeetingRooni 3A/W&&FIELD Virtually Using GoToWebhtarPlutfo&, SSACHIDSE.TTS Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Eric Correira, Matthew Cummings and Phillip Shannon; Ryan Maxwell, Associate, Matthew List, Associate Nadine DePillo, Administrative Secretary Absent: None Application of Caitlin Barrett for a Variance/Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-4.2;Front Yard Setback for an addition to the East Side elevation of the existing structure where 30 feet is required, and 20.9 feet is proposed at 84 Charles Street; (Assessor's Map/Parcel 22/251 in Residential 2 (R2) zone. Scott Rapoza, Architect from Creative Designs was present for the Applicant, Catlin Barrett. Mr. Rapoza is seeking a variance and or finding for the property of 84 Charles Street to add an addition on the second floor because the existing second floor is currently designed as an A Frame and extremely small with angled ceilings. Currently the existing square footage is 1178 feet, and the applicant is proposing to add an additional 731 feet to the first floor, second floor and adding a one car garage in the front of the house. Mr. Rapoza indicated that the upper left portion of the home is the only way that the applicant Ms. Barrett can access the space on the upper level and on the second floor the hallway will remain the same without destroying the entire structure. Mr. Rapoza stated that Ms. Barrett has a total of five children with 4 girls in one bedroom which has caused a major inconvenience. Mr. Rapoza stated that they would like to keep the older style exterior structure of the home. Mr. Rapoza stated that the addition to the property comes out to 9 feet from the street on both sides including the porch. Mr. Rapoza indicated that all the houses on that street are 10 feet from the street on both sides. Mr. Rapoza is asking tiie board for their approval of a variance or finding. Public Comment There were no public comments Board Comment Mr. List was concerned who informed Mr. Rapoza that the Applicant should file for a variance and not a finding. ZBA Meeting Minutes — September 13, 2022 Page 1 of 6 Mr, Rapoza informed Mr. List that Craig from RIM Engineering proposed that the applicant should file for a finding. The planning board supervisor and building inspector informed Mr. Rapoza that the applicant should file for a variance. Ms. Garber -Miller stated that the application should be considered for a finding instead of a variance. The proposed condition is preexisting and a nonconforming structure. Mr. Maxwell stated that the only nonconformity is the front yard setback but also agreed that it is a finding, Motion: To find that the proposed changes at 84 Charles Street, constitute an an increase in a pre-existing nonconforming condition, (Cummings/Pruitt) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Discussion The Board confirmed that the application should be considered to be a request for a finding. Motion: The proposed changes to the pre-existing nonconforming structure per the plan at 84 Charles Street, are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current conditions (Cummings/Pruitt) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained. PASSES Application of Tyler LaFreniere at Groundrules LLC, for a Variance/Finding from Zoning Bylaw Schedule 230 4.2A, minimum lot frontage of 200 feet at Brown Avenue. (Assessor's Map/Parcel 001/002) in the Residential I (Rl) zone. Applicant Tyler LaFreniere the owner of Groundrules LLC, was present. Mr. LaFreniere is seeking a variance for the property at Brown Avenue due to the unusual shape of the lot. Mr. LaFreniere purchased and owns a portion of land that is partially in North Attleboro and Mansfield. Mr. LaFreniere would like to use the North Attleboro portion of land for his business of a small excavating and landscaping company and would like to run his business on the industrial part of the lot, and build a house for himself on the residential part of his lot which is in Mansfield. Mr. LaFreniere is asking for a variance because the residential portion of the lot does not have any frontage along Plain Street, Mr. LaFreniere proposed access through an easement that has been granted on the "No New Lines and Ways" plan that was recorded at the registry of deeds in Taunton. Mr. LaFreniere submitted an easement for both access and utilities for both lots. Public Comment There were no public comments. Board Comment Mr. List asked if the lots are recorded at the Registry of Deeds as one lot or separated into two individual lots. Mr. LaFreniere stated that the land is currently recorded as one lot on the same ZBA Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2022 Page 2 of 6 deed. Mr. List indicated that there is no frontage and it doesn't qualify for a Form A subdivision to subdivide the lots. Mc LaFreniere stated that he planned the easement because the lot currently has no frontage. Mr. List indicated that there is no frontage and it doesn't qualify for a Form A subdivision to subdivide the lots. Mr. LaFreniere stated that he planned the easement because the lot currently has no frontage. Mr. List had concerns about subdividing the lots and the frontage. Ms. Garber -Miller expressed that half of the lot is not in Mansfield and located in North Attleboro and advised that both lots need to be legally separated. Ms. List expressed that there are other lots in town that cross town lines. Mr. List stated that the measurements on the Mansfield side setbacks are visual on the plans, but they do not indicate the lot widths, Mr, Correira asked if Brown Avenue was continued and was there a hearing at the last meeting. Ms, Garber -Miller expressed that Mr. LaFreniere should have presented and prepared to the Board how the lots are going to be divided, Mr. LaFreniere responded to Ms. Garber -Miller by informing the Board through discussions with his lawyer the "No New Lines and Ways" plan that was recorded should explain the separation of the lots on the plan, which does not need a Form A plan for this project, Ms. Garber -Miller stated that Mr. LaFreniere has proposed to create an unbuildable lot without frontage, without documenting exact lot lines and the deeded easement access. Mr. LaFreniere stated by creating the easement it will indicate the separation of both lots. Mr. Shannon stated that the Zoning Board needs to see the easement and how it is divided currently there is only one parcel of land. Mr. Shannon would like a continuance regarding these issues about the easement and the separation of lots. Ms. Garber -Miller explained to the applicant that the Zoning Board does not grant conditional variances. Ms. Garber -Miller stated the next step for the applicant would be to come before the Zoning Board with all the specifications. Ms. Garber -Miller also informed the Applicant that this application would require a variance from the provisions governing lot width per Section 230-1.5. Ms. Garber -Miller is seeking the following from the applicant: 1. The parcel must be separated into two lots and must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds. 2. The easement for frontage needs to be recorded with two separate parcels. 3. The access easement must be indicated on each parcel with a deed granting the access easement to the residential lot (including metes and bounds). 4. The plot plan should also include setback information to support the needed variance for lot width. Mc Correira indicated the easement should be reflected on the plan and the deed. Mr. LaFreniere commented that a neighbor who owns a lot has a water main easement running though their property and the neighbor did not have that referenced in the deed until he recently purchased the property, and it was existing since approximately the 1990's without any referencing to the deed. ZBA Meeting Minutes —September 13, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Garber -Miller explained to the applicant when applying for a mortgage, the mortgage company will pursue a title search to make sure that the owner has deeded access to the property, Mc LaFreniere needs to provide the requested submissions to the Board at the next scheduled meeting. Mr. List indicated it would be helpful to know the plan measures of the setback on the Mansfield side of the easement. Mr. List had concerns with the appropriate building envelope to document the available lot width. Ms. Garber -Miller informed Mr. LaFreniere that Mansfield Zoning By - Laws require a lot -width variance, and the width must go back the same distance at a 20-degree angle. Mr, Maxwell wanted to know if the applicant viewed other options into having a road built. Mr., LaFreniere stated that he does not want to build a road on the North Attleboro side of the property because it is undersized for industrial zoning of 60,000 square feet and it is grandfathered in because it was created from 1995. Mr. LaFreniere also explained that if he uses the North Attleboro side for a road he would not be grandfathered in for the commercial side of the property. Mr. List followed up by indicating that 1-60 does not allow residential use, it is only residential on the Mansfield side and Industrial on the North Attleboro side. Motion: To continue the matter at Brown Avenue (Assessor's Map/Parcel 001/002) in the Residential l (RI) zone. (Cummings/Pruitt) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Discussion No Board discussions Application of Marcio Martins for a Variance/Finding requested from Schedule Section 230- 4.2A Density and Dimensional Regulations to construct a new porch with a Side Yard Setback of 19.1 feet where 25 feet is required at 131 York Road (Assessor's Map/Parcel 002/201 in Residential I (RI) Zone. Applicant Marcio Martins from Ribeiro General Construction Corporation who represents die owner Kristen McElderry of 131 York Street; was present through virtual conference. Mr. Martins clarified that the building permit for the properly of 131 York Road was not denied and was not the subject of the hearing. Mr. Martins stated that Ms. McElderry discussed with the building inspector in February 2022 the correct setback for the property. 'Mr. Martins decided that 19.1 feet from the right side of the house would be sufficient. Mr. Martins stated they are not trying to build an addition for two floors, The applicant, Mr. Martins is seeking a variance for a front yard porch with side yard setback. ZBA Meeting Minutes — September 13, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Public Comment There were no public comments. Board Comment Ms. Pruitt pointed out the application filed is for an "Appeal from a Local Decision". Ms. Garber -Miller responded to Ms. Pruitt regarding the application. Through further discussion it was determined that the applicant was instructed by the building department to seek a variance through the Zoning Board. Ms. Garber -Miller stated to the applicant that he needs to seek a variance. To obtain a variance, he must explain what the hardship is in relation to the soil, shape or topography of the lot. Mr. Martins indicated that all the information regarding the soil, shape and topography should be on the plans that were proposed. Mr. Martins stated that a surveyor was hired to make measurements and determine property boundaries and town building codes. According to the Massachusetts building codes 15 feet is required for the side yard and the proposed porch is A„ feet more than the 15-fect setback. Mr. Martins stated that they would like to build a porch on the first floor of property. Ms, Garber -Miller responded to Mr. Martins regarding the setback by noting that any side yard setback of 15 feet would not be relevant. The required side yard setback in the Mansfield Zoning Bylaws is 25 feet in the RI zone. Ms. Garber -Miller indicated that the encroachment is 25% of the required setback, and the proposed addition is not additional living space. Mr. Cummings had concerns about the front porch swing area with the bump out. Mr. Cummings inquired why the builder did not consider the other side of the front door because the measurements indicate there would be no setback concerns. Mr. Martins stated he is not constructing the porch on the other side of the front door, Mr. Martins replied that the porch is extended all the way out, the applicant has a huge front yard which is 50 feet from the front of the street. Mr. Martins stated that on the right side of the house it is a square shape, which would minimize the setback from the right side of the house. Mr, Martins stated that the neighbors are approximately 100 feet from the owner's property. Mr. Martins said there is a different elevation on that side of the front door is located. Mr. Martins stated that the front door has a different shape and porch has a different shape on the left side of the garage. Discussion Mr. Cummings stated that the applicant, Mr. Martins would like to build a porch but the porch can be designed anywhere else other than the current location. Ms. Garber -Miller stated the porch could be reduced from the proposed bump out or to another location according to the plot plan. ZBA Meeting Minutes — September 13, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Garber -Miller stated the applicant continued to reiterate in his proposal to the Board that a 15-foot setback is correct, although in the RI zone the correct setback is 25 feet. The applicant can change the plan by modifying the design to conform and there world be no hardship. Mr. Correira stated that the builder created a plan and failed regarding zoning setbacks, the house is not facing the street because of the angle. Mr, List stated that the RI zone used to be different, the applicant filed for a variance which the proposed plan shows currently having 120 feet of frontage. Over time the bylaws have changed the frontage requirement. Mr. Shannon stated there are a lot more options and details that could be applied. Motion to approve a variance from Schedule Section 230-4.2A Density and Dimensional Regulations to construct a new front porch with a Side Yard Setback of 19.1 feet where 25 feet is required at 131 York Road (Assessor's Map/Parcel 0021201 in Residential I (RI) Zone. Zero (0) in favor, Five (5) opposed, Zero (0) abstained. FAILS Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: to accept the minutes of August 16, 2022 (Shannon/Pruitt) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 'S Ad�ourniment` ;:: Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings: October 4, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. Motion: To adjourn at 8:30 p.m, (Cummings/Pruitt) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES *S'lg-nat' f Clerk Date of pAppproval Z6A Meeting Minutes — September 13, 2022 Page 6 of 6