Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 01/20/2026r Town of Mansfield 6 Park Row, Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048 Zoning Board ofAppeals Meeting Minutes January 20, 2026 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Platform Present: Darlene Pruitt, Chair; Matthew List, Clerk; Edward Valanzola; Joseph O'Malley; and John McGarry Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: None Ms. Pruitt called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for video recording. Regarding the application of William & Katrin Hawkins for a Finding from Section 230-3.10 and Section 230-7.2B(4) to alter the pre-existing non -conforming structure to increase the accessible square footage, which does not make the existing single-family dwelling more non- conforming at 26 Shawmut Avenue. The Property is owned by William A. Hawkins and Katrin Hawkins and is located on Assessor's Map/Parcel 024/135 in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. Katrin and William Hawkins were present for the hearing. Ms. Hawkins explained that they have lived at the residence for just over five years. The house, built in 1930 and connected to public sewer, is an older structure, and they are seeking approval to make several improvements to better support long-term living and aging in place. The proposed work includes converting the existing three -season front porch into an insulated interior living space and leveling it to align with the main floor. At the rear of the house, they plan to replace an existing deck by enclosing it as interior space to relocate the first -floor Rill bathroom and laundry, improving kitchen functionality, and creating an accessible full bathroom with a shower on the first floor. They also noted that the basement support posts are not up to code and would be replaced as part of the project. In addition, the homeowners propose adding a second story above the enclosed rear area to create a full bathroom with a shower and an additional bedroom on the second floor. The existing second -floor half bath, believed to have been created from a former closet, would be removed and restored as closet space for the adjoining bedroom. All construction would remain within the existing footprint of the house and the current deck area, with no encroachment closer to property boundaries. While the rear roofline would change slightly to acconunodate the second -story addition, the overall height of the house would remain unchanged. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01/20/26 Page 1 of 8 The homeowners emphasized their intention to maintain the architectural character of the colonial -style home and ensure compatibility with neighboring properties. The Board discussed that the roof line would look continuous with the new addition, with the typical pitch for New England. Public Comments — There were no continents. Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. Valanzola to close the public hearing and to grant a finding pursuant to the Mansfield Zoning By-law Section 230-3.10 and 230-7.2b4 to allow the alteration and expansion of a pre-existing non -conforming single-family dwelling at 26 Shawmut Avenue, Map 24, Parcel 135 in the R3 Zoning District, substantially in accordance with the application materials, certified plot plan, and architectural plans prepared by Continental Land Survey, LLC, dated November 24, 2025, as presented to the Board. Deliberation - There was no further Board discussion. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the application of John and Jennifer McPherson for a Variance from Section 230-4.2A Side Yard Setback of 15.1 feet, where 25 feet is required to construct an addition. The property is owned by John McPherson and Jennifer McPherson and is located at 12 Old Elm Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 006/117 in the Residential 1 (R-1) Craig Cygawnoski of Rim Engineering appeared with homeowners John and Jennifer McPherson to request a variance to construct a rear addition that would be set back 15 feet from the property line in an RI zoning district, where a 25-foot setback is normally required due to septic considerations. The house was built in 1984, prior to the establishment of current lot width requirements, and while the property has 120 feet of frontage at the street, the lot narrows significantly due to a 15-foot jog, resulting in only 107 feet of width through the house and tapering to approximately 60 feet at the rear, creating a pie -shaped lot. Because of this configuration, shifting the addition to meet the 25-foot setback would require a complete relocation of the septic system, as the addition must remain at least 10 feet from the septic, and moving it further would place it directly on top of the system. Additional constraints include wetlands toward the rear of the property, further limiting feasible building locations. The proposed addition would include an in-law apartment on the first floor for the homeowner's mother, who needs ground -level living due to mobility issues. The second floor would be incorporated into the main residence. The addition is not intended for rental use. The design places the addition largely behind the existing house to minimize its visibility from the street, extending only slightly beyond the existing front jog. Neighboring homes are more than 70 feet away, and the overall configuration was noted to be similar to nearby properties, including a house at number 16, making the proposal consistent with the surrounding area. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Cygawnoski stated that they explored multiple placement options and confirmed that septic and enviromnental constraints dictated the proposed location. The homeowner received letters of support from abutting neighbors, which he submitted to the Board for the record. Board Comments The Board noted that this area of town has evolved over time, with previous dimensional requirements at 15 feet and the current at 25 feet. The requested setback would not be unusual given the existing development pattern. The hardships would be the jagged front property line, septic location, and irregular shape of the lot. Public Comments — There were no comments. Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. Valanzola to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. List to grant a variance from the Mansfield Zoning By-law, schedule 4.2a side yard setback to allow construction of a residential addition at 12 Old Elm Street, Map 6, Parcel 117 in the RI Zoning District, substantially in accordance with the application materials in the site plan entitled proposed house addition at number 12 Old Elm Street, Mansfield Mass dated November 6th, 2025. Deliberation — There was no further Board discussion. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED 4 Regarding the application of Husain Karzoun for a Variance from Section 230-7.2.B(3) and Schedule 4.2A Note 2 for 46 feet of lot frontage on a Scenic Road, where 75 feet is required for the addition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The property is owned by Husain E. Karzoun and Zean Chanunae, Trustees and successors of The 137 Old Elm Street Realty Trust, and is located at 137 Old Elm Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 006/031 in the Residential 1 zone. Craig Cygawnoski of Rim Engineering appeared with homeowners and explained that the lot is unusual and was created in 2023 as part of a subdivision that divided a larger property into three lots. The subject parcel, associated with 135 Old Elm Street, has frontage on William Street but is accessed from Old Elm Street via a shared common driveway because extensive wetlands limit where development can occur. A stream with bordering vegetated wetlands runs through the property and is subject to a 25-foot no -work buffer, effectively dividing the lot into three sections: a front third along Old Elm Street, a middle third consisting entirely of wetlands, and a rear third where the existing house and septic system are located. As a result, approximately 25,000 square feet of land in the middle portion is unusable, which the applicant described as a significant hardship. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Cygawnoski said that the applicants propose to construct a 900-square-foot accessory dwelling unit for elderly parents in the front third of the lot near Old Elm Street. Old Elm Street is designated as a scenic road, but the proposed ADU would be accessed from an existing paved shared driveway, with no impact to the stone wall, trees, or other scenic features, as the area was already cleared during construction of the common driveway. While the proposal complies with standard RI zoning setbacks, the scenic road designation requires a 75-foot front setback, which would push the structure into the wetland no -work zone, making compliance impractical. The proposed location places the ADU approximately 46 feet from the street and 29 feet from the property line, outside the wetland buffer, and allows space for a separate septic system, malting it buildable. Mr. Karzoun explained that placing the ADU closer to the existing house in the rear portion of the lot would require extending the driveway and walkways across sloped terrain, would eliminate the homeowners' only usable backyard, and would be impractical for elderly occupants who need direct and accessible access. Mr. Valanzola reasoned that the ADU could be placed on the backyard area and it would conform to the bylaw. The applicant did not have ADU renderings for Board review. The proposed ADU would be a single -story, two -bedroom, one -bath structure with a small kitchen and is intended solely for family use, not rental. Nearby development was discussed, noting the neighboring structure distances from the proposed ADU and that large portions of the surrounding land are constrained by wetlands. The Board acknowledged the potential wetland -constrained nature of the lot, the access limitations, and the hardship created by the scenic road setback. The Board briefly discussed and noted that the recently adopted ADU bylaw and evolving dimensional standards are relevant to evaluating the request. Public Comments — There were no comments. Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. Valanzola to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. Valanzola to grant zoning variance from Mansfield zoning bylaws, scenic road front setback requirements to allow construction of a detached accessory a dwelling unit at 137 Old Elm Street, Map 6, Parcel 31, in the R1 zoning district, substantially in accordance with the application materials and the site plan prepared by RIM Engineering Co. Inc. dated December 18th, 2025, as presented to the Board. Deliberation Mr. List expressed that the lot does have a wetland area and that an ADU is allowed by right. Ms. Raposa interjected and noted that a Detached ADU does require Administrative Site Plan Approval. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Valanzola explained that if it were by right, they would not be before the Board, but as it is located on a Scenic Road, it requires relief by the Board. He expressed concerns with the State setback mandate and the close proximity to neighbors. The Board discussed the recently adopted ADU bylaw, noting that it is not unique to Mansfield but is the result of a state -mandated statute that applies across municipalities. Mr. Valanzola explained that although the Town and Planning Board had supported stricter setback requirements for ADUs, particularly questioning why an ADU could be only five feet from a property line when a primary residence requires a much greater setback, the Attorney General rejected stricter setback requirements. As a result, ADUs are now allowed by right as long as they meet minimum setback requirements, and when they do not, applicants most seek zoning relief, which is why this matter was before the Board. Several concerns were raised about how the Board should handle these requests going forward. Board members expressed the view that ADU variances should be approached cautiously, especially early in the implementation of the new bylaw, noting that many similar applications are likely and that neighbors may be reluctant to appear and object. It was emphasized that ADUs are typically expected to be located in side or rear yards as accessory structures, not in front yards, and that granting relief too readily could set an undesirable precedent. Mr. Valanzola stated strong opposition to the proposal, arguing that if an ADU can be placed elsewhere on the property in compliance with existing rules, even at the cost of losing some yard space or requiring driveway and walkway modifications, then zoning relief should not be granted. The Board reviewed the dimensional constraints of the lot and acknowledged that there appeared to be sufficient space near the existing house, approximately 77.6 feet from the property line, where an ADU could be constructed without requiring a variance, subject to the standard 10-foot separation between buildings. Based on that interpretation, some members questioned whether a true hardship existed, since an alternative compliant location was available. While expressing sympathy and respect for the applicants, the Board emphasized that the novelty of the ADU bylaw requires careful consideration and a measured approach, weighing individual circumstances against the broader implications for zoning enforcement and neighborhood character. Mr. List noted that there is nothing in the ADU bylaw that restricts it from being placed in the front yard. If the property were not on a scenic road, they would not have to seek relief from the Board. Mr. Valanzola stated that accessory structures such as sheds, carriage houses, or ADUs are typically located in side or rear yards, not in front yards. While acknowledging that this particular proposal may appear less visually intrusive due to the land conditions and recognizing the challenges posed by the lot, he emphasized concern about establishing a precedent that would allow ADUs to be placed in front yards when relief by the Board is required. Mr. List felt that if Old Elm Street were not a scenic road, the ADU would be fine, as no relief would be required. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 5 of 8 The Board discussed that traditional accessory buildings, such as sheds, are typically restricted to rear yards. Members expressed concern that, because ADUs may be permitted by right in certain circumstances, applicants could potentially obtain building permits for front -yard ADUs without Board review, which some felt undermines long-standing zoning principles. This led to broader concerns that carefully planned zoning districts could be compromised by the placement of sizable ADUs in prominent locations, potentially affecting neighborhood character and property values, especially since ADUs are not required to be occupied by family members and may be rented. Mr. Valanzola emphasized that when applications do come before the Board seeking relief, variances should not be granted automatically, particularly when an alternative compliant location exists on the property, even if that option is less convenient or requires sacrifices such as loss of yard space. Mr. O'Malley acknowledged the unique constraints of the lot, including wetlands and septic limitations, and noted that the proposed location is accessed by a shared driveway and set back from the street, making it less clearly a "front yard." There was discussion over whether the proposed site should be considered a front or side yard, given the lot's configuration and environmental features. Some Board members recognized that the applicants could pursue a different design or placement that would comply with zoning requirements and proceed by right without Board involvement if the variance were denied. Overall, the discussion reflected tension between sympathy for the property's constraints and concern about precedent, zoning integrity, and the broader implications of the new ADU regulations. Vote: 3-2-0 [Aye 3, Nay 2, Abstain 0] DENIED (Mr. Valanzola and Ms. Pruitt were opposed) �,�� s�a::�?-r11�13.g,�e1►;rin .-��.�,�4„'y�I'1'r�F ,.,,-;:. �r��:'�,;, r''.' `.�.�::'� ... ..,' �- "� .,<r� Regarding the application of Currivan Family Living Trust for a Variance from Section 230- 4.2A Lot Width to create two additional single-family lots. The property is owned by Robert C. Currivan and Mary M. Currivan, Trustees of the Currivan Family Living Trust, and is located at 300 East Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 025/011 in the Residential 2 zone. Michael Trowbridge of Trowbridge Associates was present, representing Robert C. Currivan and Mary M. Currivan, Trustees of the Currivan Family Living Trust. Mr. Trowbridge explained that the request involves Lot 2, which is approximately 13 feet deficient in required lot width, even though it has excess frontage, noting that Mansfield uniquely measures lot width at the 100- foot line rather than at the front setback line as many other towns do. If measured at a shallower setback, the lot would exceed the required width, but because the property narrows significantly, it does not meet Mansfield's standard. The property has been owned by the Carvin family for decades, with the house built in 1964. Mr. Trowbridge emphasized that this is not a speculative project but a long-standing family property. Lot 2, which contains the existing house, remains substantially oversized at approximately 116,000 square feet, nearly four times the minimum required area in the zoning district. The nonconformity applies only to lot width, not lot area. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 6 of 8 The subdivision would create three lots, with only Lot 2 remaining nonconforming for width, while Lots 1 and 3 would fully comply with zoning requirements. Mr. Trowbridge expressed that the subdivision would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, as the existing house remains and the lot's unusual triangular shape naturally limits conformity. Access and driveway arrangements were discussed, clarifying that each lot would ultimately have its own driveway and curb cut, and that existing driveways would be removed or reconfigured as future development occurs. The Board also discussed surrounding streets, including Copeland Road and Church Street, noting that Copeland Road is a formally abandoned paper street with retained ownership rights, while Church Street remains a paper street but does not provide any zoning advantage for Lot 2. Board members reviewed maps and site context, including proximity to the high school and existing curb cuts, to better understand access and circulation. Public Comment Chris Colby of 341 East Street, an immediate abutter to the property. He expressed that the variance would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood, was in favor of the proposal, and would welcome new single-family homes. Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. Valanzola to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. List to grant a variance from the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw Schedule 4.2A minimum lot width requirement for property located at 300 East Sheet Map 11, Parcels 11/64 in the R2 zoning district, to allow the creation of two additional single-family residential lots substantially in accordance with the application materials and the Plan of Land prepared by Trowbridge Associates, Inc., dated December 1, 2025, as presented to the Board. Deliberation The Board discussed how to evaluate hardship given that the lots have not yet been formally created, noting that while the subdivision technically creates the nonconformity, the overall parcel already has an irregular shape that contributes to the issue. There was no abutter opposition to the proposal, and the property contains a substantial amount of land, making the subdivision a good fit and consistent with goals to create additional single-family housing near the schools. While acknowledging that the lot division introduces the width deficiency, the Board agreed that the parcel's preexisting odd shape, particularly along the side abutting the school property, creates a legitimate hardship, as a straighter boundary would likely allow fill compliance. The Board emphasized that this proposal aligns with the intent of the lot width bylaw and noted that frontage on paper streets has been considered in the past and that the subdivision is workable given the size and configuration of the land. The main challenge identified was clearly articulating the hardship in a way that satisfies statutory requirements, rather than the merits of the project itself. ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 7 of 8 Ultimately, the consensus was that the irregular shape and narrowing of the parcel constitute a reasonable hardship, and that granting the relief would be appropriate and consistent with sound planning principles. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED �.`�ir�?is`' ant��?z►ceil�ti"a�ner,�L�a!t*intEss . ,w ..,. � � - ' � ' _�., Minutes — December 16, 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 I] PASSED General Business Ms. Raposa reminded the Board that the February 201 and the April 28°i meetings will take place in meeting room 2AB with in -person attendance only. Mansfield Cable will record the meeting, but it will not be live. Virtual attendance or viewing will not be available. The March meeting will take place in room 3A/B as normal. There was a brief discussion about upcoming hearing submissions. 'I1 tt1a�4ili8xlt a F a r a Motion by Mr. McGarry and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to adjourn at 8:09 pm Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting ivill be on Febritmy 24, 2026, at 7:00 p.in Eleric ' L'%•d�//� ' P,<� % Y%l Gf�% Date of Approval Documents Submitted for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice and Agenda for January 20, 2026 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for December 16, 2025 3. Applications and supporting documents for: a. 26 Shawrnut Avenue b. 12 Old Elm Street c. 300 East Street d. 137 Old Elm Street ZBA Meeting Minutes 01-20-26 Page 8 of 8