Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 04/18/2023Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes RECEIVED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE April 18, 2023 1Q23 Dq Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3.41E and I4AY 24 q 10: Virtually Using GoToWebinarPlatform ittF;SFIEI D TS Present: Darlene Pruitt, Acting Chair; Eric Correira Acting Clerk; Matthew List, Matthew Cummings, Edward Valanzola, Associate, Michael Reed, Associate Sarah Raposa, Planning & Development Director and Nadine DePillo, Administrative Secretary Absent: Ryan Maxwell Darlene Pruitt, Acting Chair read public notice into record. Zoning Board members reviewed and voted for reorganization of the board, Darlene Pruitt was nominated for Chair and Matthew Cummings was nominated for Clerk. Motion: To approve Darlene Pruitt as Chair for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Cummings/List) Four (4) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To approve Matthew Cummings as Clerk for the Zoning Board of Appeals (Correira/List) Four (4) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Pruitt, Chair appointed Mr. Reed as voting member for the public hearing. Application of Eric and Kimberly Sherman fora Finding from Zoning Bylaws Section 230- 4.1(F) for a proposed front yard setback of 27.1 feet where 30 feet is required at 285 Plain Street; (Assessor's Map/Parcel 004/088) in the Residential I (RI) zone. Applicant Craig Cygawnoski from RIM Engineering and applicants Eric and Kimberly Sherman of 285 Plain Street were present for the meeting. Mr. Cygawnoski presented lot plans to the board members for further explanation of what the applicants are seeking. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the house was built in the 1950s. Mr. Cygawnoski further explained that the property is currently located in the Agricultural zone and according to the Zoning Bylaws the applicants are allowed to use the Agricultural zone setback of 30-foot frontage instead of the current zoning Bylaws in a Residential R1 zone which is a 40-foot frontage setback. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the proposed plot plan indicates the corner of the house is 8 feet by 9 feet, which currently does not exist. Mr, Cygawnoski also stated that the closes point to the street will be 27.1 feet rather than the 29.0 feet that currently exists in the Zoning Bylaws. The applicants Eric and Kimberly Sherman are seeking a finding to create a uniform squared shape for the home on the eastern side. Mr. Cygawnoski stated the wall on the eastern side of the property near Greenwood Lake needs major reconstruction creating a bump out of 3 feet which creates the addition of 150 square feet. Mr. Cygawnoski further noted due to the wetlands on the eastern side of the property the applicants received an approval of the design from Katelyn M. Gonyer, Conservation and Environmental Planner for the proposed plan to be constructed. Mr. Cygawnoski further stated that the hardship is the house was built on a under sized lot of 10,000 square feet and required 30,000 square feet, currently there is no place on the lot but the eastern side of the property that could be used to create and conform. The applicants Eric and Kimberly Sherman would like to add an extension onto the house which will not get closer to the road. The house is currently set parallel to the street. Mr. Sherman stated that the leaching field for the septic tank is located on the left side and further to the back of the property. Mrs. Sherman stated that Paula Fiori abuts 14 feet from the property. Mrs. Sherman further stated according to Mr. Cygawnoski the wall on the eastern side of the property near Greenwood Lake needs major reconstruction. Mrs. Sherman also explain that the pre-existing roof pitch is not designed to support a wall or door due to water damage. Board Comments: There were no board comments. Public Comment: There were no public comments. Discussion: Mr. List stated whether the proposed front yard setback is 30 feet or 40 feet from the property is still considered nonconforming according to the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Pruitt stated that the pre-existing structure needs repairs. Motion: To approve the application for a Finding from Zoning By -Law Schedule Section 230- 4.1(F) that the proposed addition with a side yard setback of 18.1 feet and a front yard setback of 27.1 feet is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming residential structure and that such alteration as presented does not create a new noncompliance with any other requirement of the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaw at 285 Plain Street per the plans submitted. (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES ZBA Meeting Minutes — April 18, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Ms. Pruitt, appointed Mr. Valanzola as voting member for the public hearing. Application of Paul J. Wood from Boston Hammer, Inc., for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Section 230 4.2A, for a proposed extended front yard porch setback of 9 feet where 30 feet is required at 88 School Street, (Assessor's Map/Parcel 026/041) in the Residential 2 (R2) zone. Applicant Paul J. Wood from Boston Hammer, Inc., and applicants Steven and Allison Thibodeau of 88 School Street were present for the meeting. Mr. Wood stated that the house is approximately 120 years old. Mr. Wood is proposing a 35-foot farmers porch on the side of the house which will encroach upon the front yard setback of 9 feet and 21 feet from the street line. The front yard setback is 30 feet from the property line and 6 feet from the street. Mr. Wood also stated that the existing footprints for the door will remain the same. Mr. List asked Mr. Wood if the landing, steps, and awning will stay within the same footprints. Mr. List also had concerns about the existing post located on each side of the building do not attach to the awning. Mr. Wood responded to Mr. List that the existing footprints will remain the same. Mr. Wood also stated that the proposed farmers porch will extend out wider using the same awning and post on each side in the ground. Mr. Wood responded to Mr. List that the steps measure 4 feet from front door the house and a few steps down. Mr. Valanzola expressed concern whether or not there are any other plans that depict the location of the current porch. Mr, Wood responded to Mr. Valanzola that currently there is no porch on the side of the house and according to the surveyor proposed plans there is only a front porch. Ms. Raposa, Planning & Development Director stated that the existing front yard setback is 6 feet with a proposed front side yard porch of 9 feet where 30 feet is required and encroaching.' Ms. Pruitt asked if the measurement for the proposed porch side yard setback is 33.6 feet? Mr. Wood responded to Ms. Pruitt stating the proposed porch will be 6 feet from the existing house and not any further. Mr. Wood also stated that the proposed porch side yard setback would be 33.6 feet from the sideline where 15 feet is required, Mr. List asked Mr. Wood if the new landing will be 6 feet deeper than the current landing? Will the front of the house be a new landing structure? Mr. List also had concerns whether or not the current top step measuring 6 feet from the front door with two steps down. Mr. Wood responded to Mr. List that the house will be 4 feet from the house and a few steps down. ZBA Meeting Minutes —April 18, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Valanzola asked Mr. Wood what was the hardship for the variance submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Wood responded to Mr. Valanzola stating that the house was nonconforming according to the Zoning Bylaws of a front yard setback of 30 feet. Mr. Wood also stated that the house cannot be moved any further back because of the gas lines and windows that would have to be removed and replaced. Mr. Valanzola stated to Mr. Wood that the proposed side porch will be a new porch. Ms. Pruitt explained to Mr. Wood when an application is submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals the applicant requesting the variance must meet the guidelines required for a hardship for the Zoning Board members to decide on any application. Mr. Valanzola expressed concerns regarding what was the hardship for the proposed porch located on the side of the home from the application submitted for a variance. Mr. Valanzola stated repeatedly that the applicant is requesting a variance and would like to know what the hardship is in relation to the application submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. List stated that the application of 88 School Street was submitted as a variance but a finding should be considered, it is nonconforming because the house is located very close to the street. Ms. Raposa, Planning & Development Director stated that Zoning Board members could decide that an extension of a preexisting nonconforming qualifies for a finding not a variance. Mr. Cummings stated that if the Zoning Board members vote for a finding there would not be a hardship requirement. Board Comment No further Board Comments. Public Comment There were no public comments. Discussion Further discussions ensued to, determine whether the application for 88 School Street is considered a Variance/Finding: - Ms. Pruitt stated that the Board should vote on this application as a finding because it meets the requirements for a finding. Mr. List stated that there are a lot of house close to the street. School Street and Spring Street houses are very close to the street, it fits within the neighborhood. Mr. List also stated that 88 School Street meets the Zoning Bylaws for a finding rather than a variance. ZBA Meeting Minutes - April 18, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Mr. List also stated that application presented is not a new noncompliance of front yard steps. Mr. List indicated according to the proposed exhibit states it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current conditions. Motion: To approve a Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230 4.2A that the proposed construction of two new porches that encroach the required front setback of 30 feet, at 6 feet and 2 1, 1 feet is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming residential structure and that such alteration as presented does not create a new noncompliance with any other requirement of the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaw at 88 School Street. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Pruitt, Chair appointed Mr. Reed as voting member for the withdrawal request. Application of Paul Jodice, from Jodice and Sons, Inc., for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Section 230 4.2A, for a proposed front, rear and side yard setback of 28.1 feet where 30 feet is required at 15 Spring Street, (Assessor's Map/Parcel 027/019) in the Residential 3 (R3) zone. Board Comment There were no comments. Public Comment There were no public comments. Discussion Applicant requested a withdrawal without prejudice. Motion: to approve the request to grant a withdrawal without prejudice on the variance request from 15 Spring Street. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Minutes — December 20, 2022 Motion: to approve the minutes of December 20, 2022 (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES ZBA Meeting Minutes —April 18, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Minutes —November 8, 2022 and February 21, 2023 Motion: To continue review and vote for the November 8, 2022 and February 21, 2023 minutes to the next scheduled meeting. (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings: May 16, 2023 at 7:30 p.m. Motion: To adjourn at 8:00 p.m. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Signature of Clerk Date of Approval ZBA Meeting Minutes — April 18, 2023 Page 6 of 6