Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 10/15/2024Town of Mansfield RECEIVED Zoning Board ofAbpeals TOWN CLERIKS OFFICE 20Z41gi;dWgAu@s33 October 15 2024 Meeting Held inU?Mb tM a ti oom 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinar Platform Present: Darlene Pruitt, Chair; Matthew Cummings, Clerk; Eric Correira; Matthew List, Ryan Maxwell, Edward Valanzola, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development Paula Perry, Administrative Assistant Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary (Remotely) Darlene Pruitt, Chair, read the introductory recording information notice into the record. Darlene Pruitt, Chair, read the public notice into the record. Regarding the application of Andrea and James McCormick for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-4.2A for a proposed new garage with a left side setback of 17.9 feet where 30 feet is required. The Property is owned by Andrea and James McCormick and located at 28 Sandy Hill Rd; Assessor's Map/Parcel 035/166 in the Residential 1 (R1) Zone. Andrea and James McCormick and their daughter Robin presented the application. Mr. McCormick said they were seeking a garage with a room over it where the driveway is currently. They plan to turn the garage under the house into an apartment for Mr. McCormick's mother. Mrs. McCormick distributed the plans for the addition to the Board. Mr. List confirmed that the side setback for the RI district is 25 feet, and they will only have 17.9 feet. Mr. List asked if they considered putting the garage in the backyard. Mr. McCormick said that to do so, they would have to remove trees and an existing deck. The backyard also slopes, so is not a level area to build on. Mr. Valanzola asked if they had spoken to their neighbors about their plan, and Mrs. McCormick said that they sent letters to all of their abutters, and no one objected to the plan. Mr. Cummings asked if they were intending to extend the driveway. Mrs. McCormick said that the driveway would go straight into the garage. Mr. Cummings asked if they had looked into ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/24 Page 1 of 8 having the driveway curve into the garage, and make the turn a little further out. Mrs. McCormick said that would make the driveway closer to the neighbor's (Mrs. Heckman) house. Mr. McCormick said that the septic is in the front yard. Ms. Pruitt explained that for a Variance to be granted, all three hardships would have to be met. She asked the applicants to explain the hardships. Mr. Valanzola asked what was next to the deck. Mr. McCormick said the land was sloped into a backyard, and that there was a retaining wall. Some windows would be blocked by a garage in the rear. If they put the proposed addition in the rear, they would also lose the deck and the yard. Mr. Valanzola thought it would look odd to put the garage in the back. Mr. Valanzola said it was an odd -shaped lot, 120 wide, and goes back 250 feet. It is a long lot, not wide. Mr. List asked if they had considered a freestanding garage. Mr. McCormick said they are requesting an attached garage so his mother can safely go directly from the garage to the in-law apartment. Mr. Correira asked if the garage could be smaller by eliminating the door. Mr. McCormick said they wanted the front door so his mother would not have to go up the stairs. If the door was eliminated they could save four feet. Ms. Pruitt asked what the existing setback is, and it was confirmed that it is approximately 47 feet. There was some discussion about a continuance so the applicant could come up with other options that would not be as intrusive, like getting rid of the door. Mr. Valanzola said that before they put the applicant through the cost, he could think of numerous reasons why the board should grant the Variance now. They are only looking for a 7-foot variance, with the 17-foot setback still in place. Mrs. McCormick said that even if they removed the door, a variance would still be necessary. Mr. List said that even if the garage was built behind the house, there would be an issue exiting the basement and entering the home. Mr. Maxwell said he could get behind topography issues as a need for the Variance. He pointed out the sloping issues in the yard. Mr. List asked if the neighbor on the right has an addition (32 Sandy Hill Rd). It was determined that many homes in their neighborhood have similar additions, so it would not be uncharacteristic of the area. Mr. List said that he agrees with Mr. Maxwell regarding the topography issue as a hardship. No public comments. Motion: Mr. Cummings made a motion to grant a Variance from zoning bylaw section 230-4.2A for the proposed new garage with a left side setback of 17.9 feet where 25 feet is required per the plan presented. ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 2 of 8 Mr. List said the topography is the hardship, and the plan is not uncharacteristic to the neighborhood. Mr. Cummings said that all other alternatives would be more intrusive to the neighborhood. Mr. Coireira said there are less intrusive options, but without an engineer present, we don't know what they are. Mr. Valanzola pointed out that the applicant's house is 65% the size of the neighboring homes. He thinks the board should look favorably on the application. By Matthew Cummings Seconded by Matthew List Vote: (Aye) 4 (Nay) 1 (Abstain) PASSED Darlene Pruitt, Chair, read the public notice into the record. Regarding the application of Emily Buckley for a Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-3.10 (2) and 230-7.2B (4) for a second -floor addition with a front setback of 28' where 40' is required. The Property is owned by Emily Buckley and located at 136 Oak Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 015/077 in the Residential 1 (Rl) Zone. Emily and Jake Buckley were at the meeting to present their application. They both have lived in Mansfield for their whole lives. They want to keep the current footprint of their home and add a second floor. Mr. Buckley said that the home is in the front of the lot and that the current foundation will support a second floor. Mr. Valanzola said that he represented the previous homeowners in the 90s. At that time, the request for a Variance was granted, but not acted upon. There was no public comment. Motion: Mr. Cummings moved to approve the application for a Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-3.10 and 230-7.2B (4) that a second -floor addition for the property at 136 Oak Street is a nonconformity that is not essentially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non -conforming residential structure. By Matthew Cummings Seconded by Ryan Maxwell Vote: (Aye) 5 (Nay) (Abstain) PASSED ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 3 of 8 Darlene Pruitt, Chair, read the public notice into the record. Regarding the application of Tyler and Elaina Brown for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-4.2 (A) for a garage and addition with a side yard setback of 5.2' where 15' is required, and a rear yard setback of 5.4' where 30' is required. The Property is owned by Tyler and Elaina Brown and located at 30 Samoset Ave; Assessor's Map/Parcel 024/175 in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. Applicants Tyler and Elaina Brown were joined by their attorney, Adrian LaCesne to present the application. Mr. LaCesne said his clients are seeking a Variance for the side and rear setbacks for the addition of a first -floor garage and second -floor master bedroom. Part of the reason for the request for this location is that there is a buried pool to the northeast corner of the property, so the only appropriate location for the garage is at the end of the current driveway. There is also an existing shed that would be removed, so there could be a question as to whether the request is for a continuation of some form of non -conformity. Mr. LaCesne referenced the 2020 Master Plan and cited that the new Business Overlay District has caused increased traffic to the neighborhood. When his clients purchased their home in the R3 zone, they were unaware of this potential increase in traffic and street crime. The town has a goal to lighten traffic and parking burdens adjacent to the downtown. Mr. LaCesne said that he has previously met with Ms. Raposa, and solicited letters from neighbors. He presented letters from Mr. Flynn and Mr. Jamous and has spoken to other neighbors including Mr. Rathbum and Mr. Hochman who are both fine with the new structure. Mr. LaCesne said that the new structure is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, and is an unobtrusive design. Mr. LaCesne stated that there is a buried pool in the back corner, so street parking is the only option, therefore security is a concern that could be subject to relief. Soil_ conditions from the buried pool would also create soil conditions subject to relief. Mr. LaCesne asked if the Board had any suggested changes, they would be open to feedback. Mr, LaCesne pointed out that the pool is located in the northeast corner of the lot. The proposed garage would be where the current driveway is. Mr. LaCesne stated that the lots in R3 are narrow, and because of the buried pool, potential garage locations are limited. Mr. LaCesne stated that the buried pool makes the rest of the lot unusable for our purposes as it creates a specific soil condition. The soil condition is a result of chlorine leaking from the pool. This chlorine bleaches carbon from the soil and leaves silicon sand and aluminum clay. These have different properties like how they sink and how they retain grass and it's not advantageous to put a garage on a surface that has uneven layering. It is not like compacted soil for a foundation where its leveled off every foot and pressed down. It's where an oval filled with water has been sitting on top of what was otherwise organic soil on top and clay underneath, so it will have a bowl shape underground. The only way to build a garage over this is to dig down 16 ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 4 of 8 feet and then level it before you pour the slab. Otherwise, it will crack in the middle and sink. They did not hire an expert for this, but that would be the standard in a construction contract. Mi•. LaCesne said that some crime does exist on the streets adjacent to the downtown area. He referenced some newspaper articles. This is another reason that a garage would be necessary. Mr. Valanzola asked what rooms were on the right side of the house. Mr. Brown said it was their living room. He also confirmed that the kitchen was in the left rear of the home. Mr. List stated that if they did not have the pool/soil condition, they would still need a variance to build the garage. Mr. Maxwell agreed that no addition would be feasible without a Variance due to the 30-foot setback requirements in the front and rear. Mr. LaCesne referenced the train station overlay district and the direction the town is going in. Keeping vehicles off the street is conducive to walking. Mr. List asked if there is a change in the number of off-street parking with this project. Mr. LaCesne stated that 2 cars could currently fit in a shotgun style in the current driveway, however with the garage, the cars would be protected and it would reduce on -street parking by one. Mr. Valanzola said that when he sees these cases of young families improving their homes and paying more taxes, he thinks that we should try to make it work. Mr. List said that we still need a hardship. Even if the pool wasn't there, this is a small lot. Mr. LaCesne said that the owners bought their home in 2019 without knowing about the downtown district. The boundaries of the district had not been announced, therefore, they were unaware of potential traffic issues. He argues that their "expected neighborhood condition" might be an additional basis for considering a hardship. Mr. Correira asked if they considered doing the garage without a door. He stated that if the door wasn't there, the distance to the property line would be greater. Mrs. Brown reminded the Board that they would also need room to get in and out of the car. Mr. LaCesne said the addition will maintain the character of the neighborhood. They are happy to revise the plan if necessary. No public comment. Ms. Pruitt was concerned that an approval would result in more requests. Mr, LaCesne recommended that they make comments in the finding that the decision was made due to the pool and other existing conditions. Mr. Valanzola said that land is unique, and so granting a Variance to one party does not mean that the house next door would be granted the same Variance. All cases have different facts and circumstances. ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Correira asked about the pool. Mr. Valanzola said that if the applicant had buried the pool, they would have created the hardship. However, they purchased the home without knowing about the buried pool, so they did not create the soil condition. Mr. LaCesne said that if the pool had not been removed, it would be an existing non -conformity given its distance to the property line. Mr. Maxwell pointed out that no abutters are objecting to the project. Motion: Matthew Cummings moved that the ZBA approves the application for a variance from zoning bylaw section 230-4.2 (A) for a garage and addition with a side yard setback of 5.2' where 15' is require, and a rear yard setback of 5.5' where 30' is required at 30 Samoset Ave. Mr. List said he is not 100% convinced that the soil allows for a variance. Even if the pool weren't there, they would still require a variance. He worries that they are granting a variance because of the lot size. Mr. Maxwell said this comes back to a bigger issue with the zoning code of the 30-foot rear setback downtown. Mr. Cummings asked if they get denied now, and the 30- foot setback zoning changes, can they reapply before the two years? Ms. Raposa said that she does not foresee that change in the near future, but they are proposing some lot width and frontage reductions. Mr. Correira said that if they grant a variance, what would be the reason? Mr. Maxwell stated that soil conditions would be the reason. Mr. Cummings said that there is no opportunity to put a detached garage on the property due to the soil conditions. Mr. List agreed and said the reasoning is that they can't do detached due to soil conditions from the pool, so the only option is the proposed plan. By Matthew Cummings_ Seconded by Ryan Maxwell Vote: (Aye) 5 (Nay) (Abstain) PASSED Ms., Raposa reviewed the Zoning Board of Avveals Rules & Regulations numbers 1-10. 1. Authority 2. Membership and Duties • Ms. Raposa pointed out that remote attendance was only possible due to travel or illness 3. Standards of Conduct for Board Members 4. Attendance 5. Conflict of Interest 6. Officers ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 6 of 8 • It was established that reorganization does occur yearly in January 7. Duties of Officers 8. Quorum and Voting 9. Regular Meetings • It was agreed that beginning in 2025, meeting time would be moved to 7:00 pm 10. Special Meetings Mr. Valanzola asked about application fees. He thought the increase should be $350 from the current $150, plus mailing costs. There was some discussion about the applicant sending out abutter notices. Ms. Raposa said that it is the responsibility of the board or the board's agent. Mansfield does not do certified mailing but mails them first class. Ms. Pruitt asked about a medical leave situation. Ms. Raposa said that if you are laid up for a long period, a board member can attend remotely with the permission of the chair. If the Chair were absent, or remote, a temporary Chair would need to be appointed. There was some discussion about interest in the vacant associate member position. Matthew Cummings announced that he will not renew, and will depart at the end of 2024. He will be teaching night classes. The Board will, as of December 31, need both a member and an associate member Ms. Raposa reviewed all Board members' terms. Mr. Maxwell inquired about the Planning Board's Dimensional Standards subcommittee. Mr. Valanzola inquired about Planning meetings that will address the new ADU bylaws. Ms. Raposa said meetings will be November 13, and possibly December 11. Ms. Raposa updated the Board on Planning Board activities. ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 7 of 8 Motion: To approve the minutes of September 17, 2024 By Darlene Pruitt Seconded by Eric Correira Vote: (Aye) 4 (Nay) (Abstain) 1 PASSED The next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting will be November 19, 2024, at 7: 30 p. m. Matthew Cummings, Clerk Date & App oval Documents Submitted for the Meetine Meeting Notice/Agenda/Legal Ad for 28 Sandy Hill Road, 136 Oak St, 30 Samoset Ave Application for 28 Sandy Hill Road, Rcvd 8/27/24 Application for 136 Oak Street, Rcvd 9/11/24 136 Oak Street, Exterior Plans, Rcvd 9/11/24 136 Oak Street, Plan of Land 1996 136 Oak Street, Plan of Land 2006 Application for 30 Samoset Ave, Rcvd 9/16/24 Meeting Minutes DRAFT of September 17, 2024 Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development memo dated 10/3/2024 ZBA App Update with Rules and Regulations Document 8/20/24 ZBA Meeting Minutes 10/15/2024 Page 8 of 8