Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 05/19/2026Town of Mansfield 6 Park Isom, Alansfield, Rlassat Zonilag Bo rli.p ��14MOFF ICE Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Platform Present: Darlene Pruitt/Chair, Joseph O'Malley/Acting Clerk, John McGarry, Edward Valanzola, and Noah Berner-Potash/Associate Priscilla McGill/Administrative Secretary Absent: Matthew List/Clerk Sarah Raposa/Director of Planning and Development lon al I l P 12: 11 -1i`.M;j IELD r ACHUSETTS Ms. Pruitt called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for video recording. Due to the absence of Mr. List, Ms. Pruitt appointed Mr. O'Malley as Acting Clerk and appointed Mr. Berner -Potash as a voting member. Regarding the application of Tanya D. Trevisan, Esq., for two variances: 1) a variance from the 15 foot side yard setback requirement under Section 230-4.2A of the Zoning Bylaw in cormection with the proposed subdivision of the property at 126 Union Street for the creation of a new, buildable lot on which would be built a single-family home with garage; and 2) a variance from the 5 foot side yard setback requirement for accessory structures, under Section 230-3.8 of the Zoning Bylaw, to allow an existing detached accessory structure (shed) to remain with a 3.8 foot side yard setback. The property is owned by Timothy T. Lynch and Alison B. Fleming as Trustees of the Lynch Fleming Living Trust, and is located at 126 Union Street; Assessors Map/Parcel 027/003 in the Residential 3 zone. Ed Valanzola recnsed hirnselfftorn the hearing as the propen)� miners are clients. Present were Timothy Lynch, with his mother, Laura, and Attorney Michael Spillane. Attorney Spillane reiterated the request to continue discussions on the variance application and asked that, if the Board was not inclined to approve the proposal as presented, they be allowed to withdraw the application without prejudice and potentially resubmit later. He explained that they explored alternatives to avoid the side -yard setback variance, but concluded that the most reasonable approach remained reducing the setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. Meeting Minutes 05/19/26 Page 1 of 4 Attorney Spillane stated that, with the additional land being acquired from the neighboring property, there would be enough area for two conforming lots. However, because of the irregular shape of the property and the need to preserve frontage for both the existing and proposed lots, the lot line must remain in its current location. He noted that alternate "zigzag" configurations were considered, but those could create additional zoning issues related to lot width and would be more intrusive than the requested setback relief. He argued that the proposal still satisfies the intent of the zoning bylaw because the primary purpose of the setback requirement is to maintain adequate separation between homes. Since no house has yet been built on the proposed lot, there is a strong possibility that the eventual structure would still sit more than 15 feet from the shared lot line, effectively maintaining the customary 30-foot distance between houses. Attorney Spillane noted that the neighboring property owner, although unable to attend due to illness, supported the proposal and preferred a single-family home on the lot rather than an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). He emphasized that the owner has lived in the neighborhood for nearly two decades and intends to remain there long-term, with the property potentially serving future generations of the family. Finally, he contended that approving the variance would better serve the Town's housing goals rather than constructing an ADU. He reasoned that a separate single-family lot would contribute taxable property, provide frrture housing opportunities for another family, and better align with the spirit and intent of the zoning bylaw. Mr. O'Malley acknowledged that the property's irregular shape may represent a unique physical circumstance warranting further discussion by the Board. Mr. Lynch stated they have lived at the property for 18 years and believe creating a separate single-family lot would be more valuable to the neighborhood than building a garage with an ADU. He said neighbors support the proposal and appreciate the improvements made to the property over the years. Mr. O'Malley noted the two requested variances, unique circumstances, and the hardship requirements for variance approval. He suggested that if the variances were approved, they would not impact the community nor substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. He reiterated that the vote requires a supermajority and that all four sitting members would have to vote favorably to pass. Ms. Pruitt asked what had changed in the plan since the last meeting. Attorney Spillane explained that the plan has not changed, but they explored alternative lot configurations; each option was either more offensive, in his opinion, or would have required additional variance requests for frontage or lot width. One alternative involved a zigzag lot line that reduced backyard area, but it still may not have met the required 80-foot lot width. He stated that, while they could pursue moving the lot line, return with another application for a lot width variance for 75 feet instead of 80, but believed the current request was the least offensive option. They could explore that option if the Board requested. He emphasized that the intent of the bylaw is to maintain a separation between homes, and they would work to position the future house farther from the proposed lot line to preserve an effective 30-foot buffer between the houses. Mr. Benner -Potash said that it would be expected that the house would fit on the lot within the zoning requirements. Mr. O'Malley inquired if conditions could be added to the decision. It was noted that conditions should be clearly tied to dimensional relief and not to subdivision approval, which is outside the ZBA's jurisdiction. Meeting Minutes 05/19/26 Page 2 of 4 Attorney Spillane stated that his clients would be willing to work with the Board to make the proposal as compliant as possible, including positioning the house farther from the lot line to help maintain a 30-foot buffer between homes. Mr. McGarry said that it would be best to keep future development as close to zoning requirements as possible by carefully siting the house when built, noting that since nothing has been constructed yet. There is flexibility to design a plan that supports the long-term cohesion and character of the neighborhood. The second variance is for the neighbor's shed, which would end up on his client's lot (after land purchase). They would grant the neighbor an easement for the exclusive use of their slued. Ms. Pruitt expressed that she is still struggling with what the hardship would be, based on what has been presented. Attorney Spillane expressed that the hardship would be that the lot line could not be adjusted properly because of the land in the rear. If they created a diagonal lot line and did not have a true rectangle, there would not be enough rear lot line to preserve the lot size, which becomes problematic. His opinion was that the plan and application represent the least intrusive method for another single-family home to be built in Mansfield. It would be a separate taxable lot and would be in character with the neighborhood. The Board expressed that the intent to use the land as presented is causing the hardship. Attorney Spillane argued that the hardship is inherent to the lot's shape rather than created by the subdivision, noting that if the property had consistent frontage and depth, it would be easily subdividable without requiring variance approval. He said that if the Board is not inclined to grant the variances, the plan would be to request to withdraw the application without prejudice. The Board discussed the procedural requirement for closing the hearing versus withdrawal. Ms. Pruitt again noted her struggle with what the hardship would be. Attorney Spillane reiterated his opinion of the hardship. He said his clients are willing to design the home to maintain proper separation between structures, and argued that the hardship stems from the irregular lot shape, which limits how the property can be subdivided and used despite having sufficient overall land area. Mr. Bermer-Potash said he recognized the proposal may be well-intentioned, but he was struggling to identify a legally sufficient hardship under the law that is separate from the proposed subdivision itself. After consulting with his client, Attorney Spillane said that his client was inclined to put a condition that the house could only be constructed within 20 feet of the lot Irene on the new lot. If that would not result in an approval, he respectfully requested to be permitted to withdraw the application with prejudice. There were no public comments. The Board considered whether to close the hearing or accept the withdrawal. Meeting Minutes 05/19/26 Page 3 of 4 Motion by Mr. O'Malley, seconded by Mr. McGarry, to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Minutes — April 28, 2026 Motion by Mr. McGarry, seconded by Mr. O'Malley to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. McGarry and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to adjourn at 7:36 pm Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The next Zoning Board ofdppeals Meeting will be on June 16, 2026, at 7: 00 p. nt Clerk Documents Submitted for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice and Agenda for May 19, 2026 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for April 28, 2026 3. Applications and supporting documents for: a. 126 Union Street i. Continuance to March 17, 2026 ii. Continuance to April 28, 2026 iii. Continueance to May 19, 2026 Date of Approval Meeting Minutes 05/19/26 Page 4 of 4