Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 16/16/2026QCEcacr tr,r, Town of MansfIeld 6 Park Roav, tlfansfie/d, Alassadmi-ells 02048 _ �ASPos ,.i1s �•� �.. r �. i_ f �(, (= Zoning Board ofAppeulr IUD:, .r '' "%' 1V`Ibe'}ing Minutes .."... ,._,_ June 16, 2026 Mel efingHeld in Persdn in Meeting Room 3AIB and Virtually Using Go ToWebinar Platform Present: Darlene Pruitt/Chair, Matthew List/Clerk, John McGarry, Edward Valanzola and Noah Bernier-Potash/Associate Sarah Raposa/Direetor of Planning and Development Sharon Varricchione/Administrative Secretary Absent: Joseph O'Malley Priscilla McGill/Administrative Secretary ;1► Zoxn�3os►rdyrd ApgealS Mpgfingas caled Co,zcrslex ak 3 O p m.,: -,. Ms. Pruitt called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for video recording. Due to the absence of Mr. O'Malley, Ms. Pruitt appointed Mr. Bermer-Potash as a voting member for the matters before the Board. Public hearing regarding the application of Edward & Loretta Martin for a Variance from Section 230-4.2A for a front yard setback of 20.5 feet, where 30 feet is required to construct a carport. The property is owned by Edward Francis Martin and Loretta T. Martin and is located at 2 Jewell Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 006/115 in the Residential 1 zone. Edward Valanzola is recused from this hearing. The Board noted that the applicant requested a continuance to the Board's next meeting on July 21, 2026. Motion duly made by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. McGarry to grant the applicant's request to continue the application to July 21, 2026. Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Public hearing regarding the application of Lisa Martin and Carole Dutchka for a Finding from Section 230-3.10 and Section 230-7.2B(4) to raze the existing garage, which has a 10.5-foot front setback, and build a new garage at a 20.9-foot font setback, which will be closer to conformance than the existing structure. The Board will consider whether the proposed alteration or extension is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing Meeting Minutes 06/16/26 Page 1 of 5 nonconforming structure and whether the proposal results in any new noncompliance with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. The property is owned by Lisa Martin and Carole Dutchka, and is located at 381 Willow Street, Assessor's Map/Parcels 029/059 in the Residential 2 zone. Present were Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering, together with the property owner Lisa Martin and family members. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the applicant is seeking a finding to remove the existing detached garage and construct a new garage attached to the existing house by a breezeway. He stated that the lot was created in 1925 and the house was built in 1926. The existing house and garage, like two neighboring homes to the south, are set approximately 10.5 feet from Willow Street. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the existing garage would be removed entirely and replaced with a new garage and breezeway set back approximately 20.9 feet from the street, where 30 feet is required. He farther stated that the proposed garage would have an approximately 15.9-foot side yard setback, where 15 feet is required, and an approximately 83.5-foot setback from Parker Street, where 30 feet is required. Parker Street was described as an unimproved road. The Board discussed that the proposal would move the garage farther from Willow Street and reduce the degree of nonconformity. Board members commented that the request appeared appropriate for a finding because the change would improve the existing condition and provide additional separation from the street. Stephen Penesis, 368 Willow Street, spoke in support of the application. He stated that he lives diagonally across the street and believes the proposal is a good idea. He noted that the applicants have two small children, that the existing garage and parking area are close to the road, and that moving the garage back would improve the situation for vehicles parked at the property. There were no farther public comments. Motion duly made by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. McGarry to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. List and seconded by Mr. McGarry, that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the requested Finding for the property located at 381 Willow Street, Assessor's Map 029, Parcel 059, in the R-2 Residential Zoning District, pursuant to § 230-3.10 and § 230-7.2B(4) of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, to allow demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a new attached garage and breezeway with a front yard setback of approximately 20.9 feet where 30 feet is required. Board Deliberation The Board noted that the proposed construction would move the garage farther back fi•om Willow Street and would make the structure safer and less nonconforming than the existing condition. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Meeting Minutes 06/16/26 Page 2 of 5 Public hearing regarding the application of Taylor Sjoberg for a Variance from Section 230-4.2A for a rear yard setback of 15 feet, where 30 feet is required for the proposed garage. The property is owned by Taylor Sjoberg and Jordan Sjoberg and is located at 35 Spring Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 027/002 in the Residential 3 zone. Present were Taylor Sjoberg and Nicholas Preston, architect and designer for the project. Mr. Sjoberg stated that he owns the property with his wife and that they have three young children. He explained that the property is a corner lot at Spring Street and Davis Street, and that the family is seeking relief in order to expand the home for their growing family. Mr. Preston reviewed the proposed addition using the submitted architectural drawings and site plan. He explained that the existing home has a nonconforming one -car garage and that the proposed work would replace it with a two -car garage addition. He stated that the existing garage is approximately 25.1 feet from the rear lot line and the proposed two -car garage would be approximately 15.1 feet from the rear lot line. He noted that although this side of the property functions as the driveway side of the house, it is technically the rear yard under the zoning bylaw. Mr. Preston stated that the scale and massing of the proposed addition would mimic the existing house. The addition would create a U-shaped house, replace the smaller one -car garage with a larger two -car garage, and use the attic area above the garage as living space with dormers consistent with the existing home. The Board asked whether the existing shed would remain and whether it would comply with the required separation from the addition. The applicant stated that the shed would remain and that it would be at least ten feet from the proposed addition. The Board asked the applicant to identify the hardship for the requested variance. The applicant stated that the hardship related to the shape and layout of the comer lot, the two front yard setbacks, and the location of the existing house, which limit where an addition can be constructed. Board members discussed whether the application should proceed as a variance or as a finding for the alteration or extension of a pre-existing nonconforming residential structure. Staff noted that the application had been submitted and advertised as a variance, but that the relief more appropriately fit the finding process because the existing structure is already nonconforming and the proposal would extend or alter that nonconforming structure. The Board discussed the applicable standard for a finding, including whether the proposed change would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming residential structure and whether it would create any new noncompliance with the bylaw. Board members discussed whether reducing the rear yard setback from approximately 25 feet to approximately 15 feet would make the existing nonconformity worse or would create a new dimensional nonconformity. Some members expressed the view that the proposed addition should be reviewed as a finding because it is an extension of an existing nonconforming structure. Mr. Valanzola expressed concern that moving the structure closer to the property line created a new or greater dimensional nonconformity and stated that, in his view, the variance standard may apply. There were no public continents. Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry to close the public hearing. Meeting Minutes 06/16/26 Page 3 of 5 Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry to amend the requested form of relief from a variance to a finding. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 1, Abstain 0] PASSED Board Deliberation The Board further discussed the finding standard. Mr. List stated that, in his view, the proposal would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood because the setback at issue functions similarly to a side yard condition and the proposed addition would still maintain approximately 15 feet of separation from the abutting property. He noted that the purpose of setbacks is to maintain space between homes and that the proposal would continue to provide that separation. Mr. Valanzola reiterated his concern that the proposal would reduce the required rear yard setback from approximately 25 feet to approximately 15 feet, where 30 feet is required, and that the increase in the nonconformity was substantial. Other Board members discussed that, under the finding standard, the Board's role was to determine whether the extension or alteration of the existing nonconforming structure would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the requested Finding for the property located at 35 Spring Street, Assessor's Map 027, Parcel 002, in the Residential 3 (R-3) Zoning District, pursuant to § 230-3.10 and § 230-7.2B(4) of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, to allow construction of the proposed attached garage addition with a reduced rear yard setback of approximately 15.1 feet, as shown on the plans presented to the Board. Vote: 4-1-0 [Aye 4, Nay 1, Abstain 0] PASSED Minutes — May 19, 2026 Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. List, seconded by Mr. McGarry to adjourn at 7:33 pm Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting will be on July 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.nz C1 rl.( Date of Approval Meeting Minutes 06/16/26 Page 4 of 5 Documents Submitted for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice and Agenda for June 16, 2026 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for May 19, 2026 3. Applications and supporting documents for: a. 2 Jewell Street b. 381 Willow Street c. 35 Spring Street Meeting Minutes 06/16/26 Page 5 of 5