Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 05/16/2023V/ Zoning Board of Appeals Minn RECEIVED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE May 16, 2023 10B JUN 22 A C� 33 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and M n R S F I E L D Virtually Using Go ToWebinarPlntform i` ASS,ACHUSETTS Present: Darlene Pruitt, Chair; Matthew Cummings, Clerk; Eric Correira; Ryan Maxwell, Matthew List, Edward Valanzola, Alternate, and Michael Reed, Alternate Nadine DePillo, Administrative Secretary Absent: None ,u.�ys a,= y ,._� Say.:" � �J✓' xi 3 rc„,�» -ayv s= `"' �„e' v:.- �" -fix �xr 'y„-� r Darlene Pruitt, Chair recused herself from the hearing and appointed Matthew Cummings as Acting Chairman for the application of Rear Eric Road/0 Bonney Lane. Darlene Pruitt, Chair appointed Matthew Cummings as Acting Chairman for the application of Rear Eric Road/0 Bonney Lane. Matthew Cummings, Acting Chairman, read the legal notice into the record and appointed Mr. Valanzola as voting member for the public hearing. Application of Alphonse D'Amico for a Variance from Zoning Bylaws Section 23-1.5, Definitions, Lot Width, for the creation of a lot area and lot width with less than the required lot width at Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane; (Assessor's Map/Parcel 041/099) in the Residential (RI) zone. Craig Cygawnoski from RIM Engineering and applicant Alphonse D'Amico of Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane were present. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the property was put on auction approximately 6 months ago and Mr. D'Amico was the winning bidder for this property. The area contains several apartment buildings. In 1984 the Town approved an ANR (Approval Not Required Plan) which took the lot out away from the adjacent Special Permitted development and created the new lot as Residential (RI). Mr. Cygawnoski further stated that the building inspector for the Town of Mansfield confirmed that the lot does not meet the Town of Mansfield's requirements of 60,000 Square feet with a building box of 200 x 200 square feet on the lot. The Town of Mansfield could not grant Mr. D'Amico a building permit without proceeding through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance. Mr. Cygawnoski submitted plans to the Zoning Board that depicts a single-family house meeting all the required setbacks. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the 20-foot-wide drainage easement indicated on the proposed plans were already set in place by the Town of Mansfield through an existing stream through the north of Erick Road which connects with Bonney Lane's drainage through the South with the drainage easement running through the lot. Mr. D'Amico is seeking a variance to allow the construction to build a one -family house on the proposed lot. Mr. D'Amico stated that before bidding on the lot he contacted the Town of Mansfield to inquire if he could build a multi -family home on the property at 0 Bonney Lane and was informed that the proposed lot is zoned for a one family house on the property and 60,000 square feet is required to build on a lot and could be used for a one -family home if all the requirements are met from the Zoning Board Appeals. He noted that if he gets the permit he will build but if not, he would lose the $5,000 deposit. Mr. D'Amico also stated to the Zoning Board that Mr. Cygawnoski had additional pictures that depict how the house would appear on the property. Mr. List asked what the prior minimum lot size was and if the proposed lot meets the grandfather provisions of the law. Mr. Cygawnoski responded to Mr. List and stated that the lot size was 30,000 square feet in 1984 and for the proposed plan the lot size is 39,215 square feet. He continued by stating that the minimum frontage was 120 feet and the building box was not required during that time. The setbacks were 30 feet on the sides and 15 feet for the front and back of the proposed property, The proposed plan meets the setback requirements. Mr. Valanzola expressed concerns regarding the lot auction documents of ownership where not signed and would like to know who currently owners the proposed lot. Mr. Valanzola also had concerns regarding whether or not the property was paid in full because in relation to the legal documents presented to the broad from the lot auction indicates that payment for the lot is required by December 2022. Mr. D'Amico stated that he paid the deposit for the proposed lot and received an extension from the Town of Mansfield, Mr. D'Amico also stated that he did not want to purchase the lot until he was assured that he could build on the lot. Mr. Valanzola expressed his concerns regarding Mr. D'Amico's due diligence prior to investing in purchasing the lot. Mr. Valanzola also stated that the Town of Mansfield will not give information regarding whether a lot is buildable or not. Mr. D'Amico responded to Mr. Valanzola stating that he used his best efforts in performing his due diligence but also stated that he did not follow up to confirm that the lot met the additional dimensional requirements in the Table. Mr. Valanzola asked what are the applicant's intensions with the property, will he reside at the property once it is built or will the house be sold after it has been built? Mr. D'Amico stated that he will sell the home after it has been built to hopefully generate a profit. Mr. Valanzola asked what the hardship was as it relates to the statute for the proposed variance that they are seeking for Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane. Mr. Valanzola stated that the lot is unique and is surrounded by a roadway on two or three sides. Mr. D'Amico responded that the hardship would be spending Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000.00) dollars for the proposed lot. Mr. D'Amico stated that he will only spend the $5,000.00 deposit for the lot until he knows the lot is buildable. Mr. Valanzola explained to the applicant that he did not spend $200,000.00 because the lot is not paid in according to the lot auction paperwork. Mr. Valanzola also explained that paying for the lot is not a hardship. Mr. Valanzola also stated that the lot is beautiful and there is a shortage of houses, inventory and land in the Town of Mansfield and understands the concerns when building a one -family dwelling on the property. Mr. Cummings asked if the lot was off centered to avoid the drainage easement. Mr. Cygawnoski responded by stating that the lot is off centered to avoid the drainage easement. Mr. Cygawnoski confirmed that the drainage easement is not indicated on the deed or on the plans. Mr. Cygawnoski also stated that the Town of Mansfield added the drainage line. Mr. List asked if the Building Inspector knew if this lot qualified as a Grandfathered lot. Mr. List had concerns regarding the hardship of Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane. Mr. List explained that the hardship should involve soil, shape, or topography not size. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the Building Inspector explained that they did not need the 50 feet of frontage or the 5,000 square foot buildable lot because the lot was not created before 1952 when zoning was established. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that they do not qualify under the small lot exemption. Mr. Valanzola asked when the proposed lot was created. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that it was created in 1984. Mr. Cummings asked what the total square footage for the proposed plan was to build a one family house. The applicant's builder, Mr. Farias stated approximately 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. Mr. Farias further stated that the final proposed plans were not completed. Mr. Cummings asked if the applicants thought of other ideas to create a smaller proposed plan of a one family house which would fit within the requirements. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the proposed plan to build a house does meet the minimum requirements, and they are currently over 40 feet from all the roadways and the side yard s is 25 feet. Mr. Cygawnoski stated the drainage easement line is the setback line. Mr. Farias also further stated that the proposed plan to build a house does not indicate the proposed garage and pool. Board Comments: There were no additional board comments. Public Comment: There were no public comments. Discussions: Further discussions ensued regarding the proposed hardship for the variance submitted. Mr. List explained further why the proposed plan for a variance does not meet the requirements stating that the requested variance for Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane is still not determined for a hardship which would indicate soil, shape and or topography not the size of the lot. Mr. List also stated that in the M.G.L. Ch 40A Section 10 does not grant the Board the power to override the variance over a size issue of the proposed plan. Mr. List stated that the proposed plan for a variance does not meet the requirements, Mr. Valanzola expressed his concerns regarding the proposed plan for a variance regarding the purchasing of the lot from the lot auction with the bidding, deposit and the transaction not completed in December of 2022 indicated in the documents presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Valanzola further stated that the proposed plan for Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane was represented as a buildable lot, or it could be a single-family lot which was not well defined according to the Zoning Bylaws. Mr, Valanzola further stated that there is a shortage of single-family homes and land lots in Mansfield. The proposed lot is almost 40,000 square feet and oddly shaped which does qualify under the Statute the shape of the lot, according to the proposed plan to build a one family home meets the required setbacks. Mr. Valanzola continued to explain that the variance request is for a lot area and frontage. Mr. Valanzola stated that if the property were 10 feet from the sideline of the street this would cause a serious setback issue. Mr. Valanzola expressed great concern that the requested variance does not derogate greatly from the current bylaws. Mr. Valanzola stated the proposed plan for the one family house would be a great addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Correira was opposed to granting a variance stating that the one family home does not satisfy the hardship requirement. Mr. Cummings stated that the board has observed other applications where there are unique shapes of lots and zoned by the Town of Mansfield. Mr. Valanzola stated the lot is an odd shape which qualifies for a hardship under the statute. Mr. List expressed if the lot was shaped like a square and the size was 40,000 square feet the question would still be the hardship for the variance. Mr. List further stated it isn't the shape of the lot it is the size in question. Mr. List also stated that there is an immense derogation from the Zoning Bylaws that require 60,000 square feet. Mr. List stated that the lot size is currently larger than the lots in the area near Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane. Mr. Valanzola stated the shape of the lot works as a hardship and 99.9% of all variances would never pass if following the statute. Mr. Cummings stated that this was different from other denied variance requests because they were looking to divide an existing lot whereas this applicant is looking to purchase an existing lot owned by the Town of Mansfield. Mr. Correira stated if all lots were buildable there would be a lot more people present for the tax auctions. Mr. Reed asked if any perk tests were done on the proposed lot. Mr. Reed also stated that the water table is high in the area and if a house is pushed out 10 or 12 feet off the ground the water would flow to a slope and the abutting roads. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that there is a town sewer near the property of Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane. Mr. Cygawnoski also stated that there is a ditch, and the water runs 4 to 5 feet below ground level. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that no perk test was performed but if the perk test was performed it would be approximately 8 feet deep. Mr. Valanzola stated in his experience at other Board meetings and or hearings a motion to deny a variance because it does not receive the four votes the argument could be made that the variance is granted. Mr. Valanzola also stated that he is currently working on an application with the land court from another town and the Zoning Board made a motion to deny the vote and it was a 3-2 vote which meant to grant the variance. Mr. Valanzola also stated always try to make a motion to allow a variance and if it gets 2 no votes then it will fail. Motion: To grant the Variance from Zoning By -Law Schedule Section 230-1.5 for a Definitions, Lot Width, for the creation of a lot area and lot width with less than the required lot width at Rear Erick Road/0 Bonney Lane. (Assessor's Map/Parcel 041/099) for the construction of a single-family dwelling due to the unique odd shape of the lot, it is not a hardship that the applicant created, the lot size is less than the required area but a single-family home won't stand out as being misplaced and will satisfy all the setback requirements and does not derogate from the intent of the Bylaw. (Valanzola/Maxwell) Three (3) in favor, Two (2) opposed, Zero (0) abstained. Motion to approve failed to pass by the required 4/5°i vote and is therefore denied. Darlene Pruitt, Chair read the public notice into the record. Applicant of Scott and Lisa Semple for a Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230 4.2A for a proposed alteration to add a second floor on the existing structure with a side yard setback of 8 feet where 25 feet is required at 115 Brown Avenue. (Assessor's Map/Parcel 004/009) in the Residential (Rl) zone. Applicant Lisa Semple from 115 Brown Avenue was present. Ms. Semple is seeking a finding for a proposed addition for a second floor on the existing structure. Ms. Semple stated that the house has a pre-existing setback of 8 feet. Ms. Semple also stated that they are looking to build upward with no plans for anything specific but to generate more space. Mr. List had concerns whether the proposed addition would extend out any further than the pre- existing structure that is already there. Ms. Semple responded that the proposed setbacks for the addition will not extend any further than the pre-existing structure. Mr. Maxwell asked whether the proposed addition for the second floor covered the entire first floor. Ms. Semple responded that the proposed addition for the second floor would cover the entire first floor and there are no setback changes, Ms. Semple stated that on one side of the property there is a right of way which is the property of the Town of Mansfield. Ms. Semple also stated that near the property there is a little cove area, which has abutters on the other side that are in support of the proposed project and are present for the hearing. Board Comment No additional board comments. Public Comment There were no public comments. Discussion There were no discussions. Motion: That the ZBA finds that the proposed addition of a second floor on the existing footprint 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 (Cummings/List). Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 5. Correspondence and Minutes Minutes —November 8, 2022 (Present Members: Pruitt, List, Maxwell) Motion: to approve the minutes of November 8, 2022 (List/Maxwell) Three (3) In favor, Two (2) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Minutes — February 21, 2023 (Present Members: Pruitt, Correira, Maxwell) Motion: to approve the minutes of February 21, 2023 (Maxwell/Correira) Three (3) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Minutes — April 18, 2023 (Present Members: Pruitt, Correira, Cummings, List) Motion: to approve the minutes of April 18, 2023, as amended. Four (4) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meetings: June 20, 2023, at 7:30 p.m.l Motion: To adjourn at 8:01 pm (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Signature of Clerk Date of Approval