Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 09/16/2025Town of Mansfield Zoning Board ofAppeals RECEIVED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE 2025 00 22 A 8. 14 Psi A S AN '"nurtes eptem er 16, 2025 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Roon: 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Platform Present: Matthew List, Acting Chair; Eric Correira, Acting Clerk; Edward Valanzola; Joseph O'Malley; and John McGarry, Associate Member Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Darlene Pruitt, Chair Matthew List called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for video recording. He informed the virtual audience that there were audio technical issues, which meant that the outside public could hear us, but we could not listen to them. However, they were welcome to attend the meeting in person or submit written continents to the Planning Department. As Ms. Pruitt was absent, he then asked the Board for motions to appoint an Acting Chair and Acting Clerk. Motion by Mr. Correira and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to appoint Mr. List as Acting Chair. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to appoint Mr. Correira as Acting Clerk. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the application of Marie Mercier/Sign Design Inc. for a Variance from Section 230- 4.7 for a free-standing, non -illuminated sign larger than three square feet in a residential zone. The Property is owned by James Crawford and located at 170 School St; Assessor's Map/Parcel 012/024 in the Residential 2 (R2) Zone. Mr. List appointed Mr. McGarry as a voting member for the hearing. Marie Mercier, Sign Design Inc. was present representing Magical Beginnings of 170 School St. Her client is seeking to install a non -illuminated post and panel sign, larger than the three square feet allowed in a residential zone. They are seeking to add a larger sign for the daycare business. ZBA Meeting Minutes 9/16/25 Page 1 of 5 The property is the last house on the corner of School St., abutting a commercial zone. The sign would be installed at ten feet from the property line and would not obstruct the view of passing traffic. The new sign is about 6.25 square feet per side. Mr. List said that the daycare and house are pre-existing, and there was no monument sign there previously. Ms. Mercier referenced a post and panel residential sign that previously existed at a nearby residential location, which the owner removed when his business relocated. Mr. Valanzola inquired if the Board has the authority to grant a sign variance in a residential zone. He asked for clarification whether the relief is being asked for the use of the sign or the size. Ms. Raposa noted that bylaw section 4.7 is silent on residential signs. Mr. List said that 4.71)(1) allows one sign in all districts if not illuminated, and is limited to three square feet. Ms. Mercier confirmed that the sign's top panel is 30" x 30" and the lower panel is 24" x 6". Mr. List said that a variance would be based on the lot shape, topography, or soil of the lot. The sign being larger than three square feet could be a hardship. Board members agreed that the sign and location were not an issue, but that their determination needed to be grounded with the variance requirements. There were no people from the public present or online with questions or opposing the application. Mr. Correha noted that the residential location is adjacent to conunercial zoning. Mr. List said that other houses and commercial buildings are very close on School Street. Other signs on that stretch of School Street are close to the street and larger than three square feet. There are unique site conditions where the site is on a corner lot, near Route 140, with heavy traffic. A smaller sign could cause short stop conditions that would be dangerous. There was farther discussion on the dangerous conditions with a yield sign and lights on Route 140. The sign and placement would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The fact that it is a corner lot and that the house is close to the street could be a hardship. Motion by Mr. Correira and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. Correira and seconded by Mr. McGarry that, based on the criteria as discussed, move that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application for a variance for a front yard setback of 10 feet, where 30 feet is required for a free-standing, non -illuminated sign larger than three square feet in a residential zone. The Board agreed that the hardship is that the location is a corner lot and that the sign could not be at a 30-foot setback without impeding the residential structure. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED ZBA Meeting Minutes 9/16/25 Page 2 of 5 Regarding the application of Michael and Amy Feck for a Finding from Section 230-4.2(A) for a front yard setback of 19 feet, where 25 feet is required, does not make the existing single-family dwelling more non -conforming. The Property is owned by Michael and Amy Feck and located at 668 Elm St.; Assessor's Map/Parcel 015/003 in the Residential 1 (RI) Zone Mr. List appointed Mr. McGarry as a voting member for the hearing. Michael Feck of 668 Elm Street was present. He provided background information, noting that the lot was pre-existing, non -conforming, with 120 feet of fiontage where 200 feet is required. It did not meet the definition for lot size. He had applied to the Planning Board for a residential compound that allows a common roadway, or common driveway, or separate driveways as long as there is 50 feet of frontage and 80,000 SF per lot. He received approval from the Planning Board, which then created two conforming lots. The Planning Board cannot render an approval to a lot that has a pre-existing, non -conforming structure. Therefore, the decision was granted with the condition that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the finding for the structure. There were no proposed changes to the existing house. The two options posed to the Planning Board were: • Raze the existing house and move the new house to a conforming location, or • Keep the house and seek the ZBA finding for the pre-existing, non -conforming structure. Mr. Feck said it would be advantageous to keep the house as a starter home, which would be in demand given the current market. Mr. List referenced the Planning Board's letter of support to approve the finding. Mr. Gary Eagan, an abutter, submitted a comment letter to the Board on 09/14/25. Mr. List noted that the abutter letter referenced a 2007 variance for a similar situation. He felt that this situation consisted of different facts for a residential cluster. Ms. Raposa said that the finding is only for the non -conformity and has no bearing on the second lot or house. Mi•. Feck said that he had spoken with some of the abutters and none expressed opposition to the project. There were no public comments. Mr. Vananzola asked how close the proposed driveway would be to the existing property. Mr. Feck said that it would be about five to ten feet. Motion by Mr. Correira and seconded by Mr. McGarry to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by O'Malley and seconded by McGarry to grant the request of Michael and Array Feck for a Finding under M.G.L. c.40A, §6 and Mansfield Zoning Bylaw §230-4.2(A) that the Planning Board's approval of a Residential Compound Special Permit at 668 Elm Street does not make the existing single-family dwelling more nonconforming, and that the continued existence of the dwelling is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. ZBA Meeting Minutes 9/16/25 Page 3 of 5 The Board deliberated and determined that the Planning Board's special permit approval for the residential cluster provides relief for the frontage issue. it also allows the applicant to maintain the existing house as a significant starter home and creates open space. The letter of support from the Planning Board is a benefit. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, as amended, the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. on the appeal of Attorney Kevin S. Freytag on behalf of James N. White, Kirsten Murawski, Nicole Mullen, Nirav Desai, and David S. Haring, of the Building Inspector's grant of a building permit in connection with the construction of a 16,800 square foot facility with thirty-two (32) parking spaces at 19 Knight Way. The property is owned by FOD, LLC and located on Assessor's Map/Parcel 003/051 in the Residential 1 (Rl) Zone. The applicant submitted a request to continue the hearing to the October meeting. Mr. Valanzola is recused from this hearing. Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. McGarry to continue the public hearing without testimony for the appeal of the issuance of a building permit at 19 Knight Way to 7:00 pm on October 21, 2025. Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Minutes — August 19, 2025 Motion by Mr. McGarry and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-1 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED General Business Ms. Raposa updated the Board on changes to the 2026 meeting schedule for holiday and school vacation conflicts. Ms. Raposa distributed a draft proposal for a zoning bylaw amendment that would allow the ZBA to grant special permits, rather than variances, for sign bylaw relief. She noted that she had proposed the same amendment at the Planning Board's public hearing on zoning amendments, but it was not well received by a member of the community, which led to further Planning Board discussion. Because of the extensive discussion at that hearing and the various circumstances that apply to signs, Ms. Raposa requested feedback from the ZBA. She explained that the reasoning behind allowing special permits is that variances require strict compliance with specific regulations, whereas special permits remove the need to demonstrate special circumstances. ZBA Meeting Minutes 9/16/25 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Raposa emphasized that this proposed bylaw change is not essential for submission to the fall Town Meeting and suggested continuing to refine it in collaboration with both Boards. Mr. List commented that the existing sign bylaw is confirsing and could benefit from an update. Ms. Raposa also summarized a separate bylaw proposal regarding school bus parking, noting that it presents several challenges to accommodate as a bylaw use. She stated that, following discussion at the first public hearing and subsequent research, she may have reached a conclusion that would eliminate the need for a bylaw change. There was discussion about whether such use should instead be permitted under the Dover Amendment. Ms. Raposa further noted that the Town currently generates approximately $30,000 in excise tax revenue from existing bus parking. Finally, Ms. Raposa apprised the Board of additional proposed articles for the Town Meeting. One proposal is for a 40Y overlay district to allow starter homes on a tract of land off Gilbert Street. Another proposal is to correct the previously submitted MSROD overlay district compliance model. The State determined that the submitted model included land that did not meet the required criteria, which must be omitted and replaced in order to satisfy the criteria and housing stock count. Motion by Mr. McGarry and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to adjourn at 7:53 pm Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting will be on October 21, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. 16171 Cler < Eyi o1 YCi !>itcj Cf� Date of Approval Documents Submitted for the Meeting 170 School Street application and supporting documents 668 Elm Street application and supporting documents 19 Knight Way application, supporting documents, and continuance request Minutes from 08/19/25 ZBA Meeting ZBA Meeting Minutes 9/16/25 Page 5 of 5