Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 09/22/2026QQEc�nor t>�r Town of Mansfield 6 Pak liox, iWansfield, iWassacfuseth- 02048 04SA Zoning Board ofAppeals Meeting Minutes September 22, 2026 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Roont 2A/B Present: Matthew List/Acting Chair, Jolm McGarry/Acting Clerk, Edward Valanzola Noah Betmer-Potash/Associate, and Brian Mukasa/Associate Sarah Raposa/Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill/Administrative Secretary Absent: Darlene Pruitt/Chair and Joseph O'Malley Due to the absence of Ms. Pruitt and Mr. O'Malley, the following motions were made: Motion by Mr. Valanzola, seconded by Mr. Benner -Potash, to nominate Mr. List as Acting Chair Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. Valanzola, seconded by Mr. Benner -Potash, to nominate Mr. McGarry as Acting Clerk Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the application of Michael R. Spillane, Esq., for three variances set forth on Schedule 4.2A of the Zoning Bylaw: 1) from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement; 2) from the lot width requirement; and 3) from the minimum lot frontage requirement for the creation of a new lot for the construction of a single-family home. 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; Assessor's Map/Parcel 027/003 in the Residential 3 zone. Mr. List appointed the two Associate Members as voting members for the hearing. Attorney Michael Spillane appeared for property owners Timothy Lynch and Allison Fleming. The proposal is to divide the existing property into two lots and construct a single-family home on the new rear lot. The applicants requested dimensional relief relating for the side -yard setbacks for the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 1, the mirnimiun frontage for the proposed lots, and the minimum lot width. The parcel contains more than 28,000 square feet, allowing two lots that would each exceed the 10,000- square-foot minimum lot area. The difficulty is the parcel's long, narrow shape. Attorney Spillane explained that a prior application had been withdrawn after an anticipated land transaction with a neighbor fell through. Under the newly amended M.G.L. c. 40A, § 10, the Board may apply the new "practical difficulty" standard and balance the benefits of the proposal against potential detriments. Meeting Minutes 09/22/26 Page 1 of 6 Mr. List read a statement regarding MGL c.40A, § 10, which was amended, effective July 1, 2026, to replace the former statutory variance criteria with a "practical difficulty" standard. Attorney Spillane expressed that the proposed dimensional relief results from the shape of the parcel rather than an effort to overbuild it. Many lots on Union Street have approximately 70 feet or less of frontage and do not meet the current lot -width requirement. The proposed house would meet its applicable building setbacks and would be relatively modest in size. The conceptual footprint discussed was roughly 38 by 28 feet, or somewhat under 1,200 square feet. The house is intended for the applicant's elderly mother, who is experiencing difficulty using stairs in the existing house. If the new lot were not approved, the owners might instead construct an ADU. The applicant argued that a separate lot and dwelling would provide more permanent housing and greater property -tax value. There were no public comments. Board discussion The Board focused heavily on how to apply the new variance law. Members generally found that the proposed frontage and lot width are consistent with the established pattern of Union Street. Similar narrow lots and small side -yard setbacks already exist in the neighborhood. The proposal would not introduce a development pattern that is foreign to the neighborhood. Creation of a separate single-family dwelling would support housing production. A separate lot provides a longer -teen housing benefit than an ADU, which would remain legally tied to the principal property. One member initially expressed concern about the extent of the side -yard relief for the existing house, but acknowledged that similar conditions occur elsewhere on the street. Motion by Mr. McGarry, seconded by Mr. Mukasa to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. Benner -Potash, seconded by Mr. McGarry that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the requested dimensional variance for the property located at 126 Union Street, Assessor's Map 027, Parcel 003, in the R-3 Residential District, pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 10 and § 230-7.2.B(3) of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, upon fording that strict enforcement of the Zoning Bylaw would result in a practical difficulty and that, after weighing the benefits to the applicants and the public interest, including the interest in supporting housing production, against any detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, the statutory balance supports granting the requested relief, as follows: A variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement under Attaclunent 2, Schedule 4.2A of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw to allow the existing principal dwelling on proposed Lot 1 to maintain a side yard setback of approximately 6.5 feet; and A variance from the 15-foot side yard setback requirement under Attaclunent 2, Schedule 4.2A of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw to allow the existing exterior stairs on proposed Lot 1 to maintain a side yard setback of approximately 3.1 feet. Motion by Mr. Valanzola, seconded by Mr. McGarry, to amend the motion to include: 3. A variance from the minimum lot frontage requirement for the creation of a new lot for the construction of a single-family home. Meeting Minutes 09/22/26 Page 2 of 6 This approval is subject to the plans, findings, and conditions incorporated into the Board's written decision. Conditions of Approval 1. Plan Conformity. The variance is granted solely for the dimensional relief shown on the plan entitled "Proposed Lot Division at No. 126 & 140 Union Street, Mansfield, Massachusetts," prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., dated January 14, 2026, as revised through [INSERT DATE], including the setback dimensions expressly identified in this decision. 2. Limited Relief. No change to the approved lot configuration or further reduction of an approved setback is authorized by this decision. Any material modification affecting the approved dimensional relief shall require further review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 3. Shed Removal. The existing detached shed shown near the proposed lot line shall be removed before endorsement or recording of the plan creating proposed Lots I and 2. No variance is granted for the location or continued existence of the shed. 4. Other Approvals. Approval of this variance authorizes only the dimensional relief expressly granted by this decision. The variance does not create, approve, or endorse the proposed lots and does not constitute approval or endorsement under the Subdivision Control Law. The proposed lot division shall obtain any required Planning Board endorsement or approval render G.L. c. 41 and all other applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals. 5. Lot 2 Concept Plan. The Lot 2 concept plan was considered by the Board solely for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility and potential effects of creating the additional residential lot. This decision does not approve the future dwelling or site layout depicted on the concept plan and does not require construction in exact conformity with that plan. 6. Future Development. Any future development of proposed Lot 2 shall comply with all applicable zoning, building, fire, utility, stormwater, driveway, and other permitting requirements. No approval of a particular dwelling, driveway, grading, drainage, utility, or site layout for proposed Lot 2 is granted through this decision. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Public hearing regarding the application of David & Amy Walsh for a Variance from Section 230-3.10 Nonconforming Uses where the non -conforming parcel is comprised of two vacant land parcels, one situated on an island in Greenwood Lake and one landward parcel. The applicant seeks to construct a single-family home, on -site sanitary disposal system, and potable well on the landward parcel. The property is owned by Mary A. Carty & Danielle F.L. Keane, Trustees of the James P. Carty, Jr. Living Trust u/d/t October 21, 2024, and is located at 1769 West Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 002/366 in the Residential 1 (R-1) zone. Scott Rolfe of Plymouth Bay Associates was present representing the applicants. He summarized a letter from Attorney Patrick Sullivan responding to the 14 questions the Board previously raised. The major conclusions were: • M and N constitute one condominium unit under the master deed. The master deed neither expressly authorizes nor expressly prohibits construction of a principal dwelling on the landward portion. Meeting Minutes 09/22/26 Page 3 of 6 • Recording the condominium documents did not create a zoning entitlement or grandfathered right to build. • The applicant is proceeding on the assumption that zoning variances are required. • The applicants are not claiming a continuing right to reconstruct the former island cottage. • The condominium access rights do not, in the attorney's opinion, satisfy the zoning frontage requirement. • Attorney Sullivan did not believe condominium -association approval was required to build a residential dwelling within Unit MIN. • The master deed restricts the creation of additional condominium units, but reportedly does not expressly limit the number or location of dwellings within an existing unit. • The applicants do not rely on the ZBA's 2014 decision involving the property because the applicable variance standard has since changed. Board Comments Board members expressed concern about whether there is a zoning lot. They were not satisfied that Attorney Sullivan's letter answered the threshold zoning question and felt there were unresolved issues as to whether: • M and N together constitute one zoning lot; • the landward parcel alone is the zoning lot; • the condominium access easement or common gravel roadway supplies frontage on a qualifying way; or • the property has no frontage and therefore may not constitute a "lot" upon which the ZBA has authority to grant dimensional relief. Mr. Valanzola explained that identifying a single condominium unit is not necessarily the same as establishing a zoning lot. M and N are physically noncontiguous and separated by the water. He requested a substantive legal opinion addressing: • What constitutes the zoning lot under the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw and M.G.L. c.40A. • Whether M and N constitute one lot for zoning purposes. • Whether the common roadway, condominium access rights, or easement qualify as frontage on a "street," "way," or private way under the bylaw. • The ZBA's legal authority to grant a frontage variance if the lot has zero frontage. • Whether the lot area is based on the landward parcel alone or on the combined area of M and N. • The precise lot area, frontage, and lot -width relief being requested. The Board suggested that the applicant obtain an opinion from an attorney with zoning expertise that includes actual legal analysis and authority supporting the requested approach. The Board also discussed how the new "practical difficulty" standard might apply if the threshold lot question is resolved. They considered that construction and year-round emergency access on the island would be difficult. A landward home would create housing and be easier to access. They noted that a dwelling previously existed on the island. The proposal would still involve very substantial relief from the 60,000-squarefoot lot -area requirement, the 150-foot frontage requirement, and the lot -width requirement. If only the landward parcel is considered, the proposed lot would be substantially smaller than the other landward units in the condominium association. If both parcels are combined to improve the lot -area calculation, the Board would have to treat two pieces of land separated by a lake as one zoning lot. Meeting Minutes 09/22/26 Page 4 of 6 A Board member indicated that the application would have been difficult to approve under the former statutory standard. The new law makes the balancing analysis possible, but does not require the Board to disregard the bylaw dimensional requirements. Public Comments Several Clark Shores residents spoke in opposition or raised concerns noting that historically, the landward portion was used for parking, boat storage, utility service, and access connected to the previously existing island cottage, not as a principal residential building site. One original condominium owner expressed that they did not understand the landward parcel to have been intended for a house. When the private water line was installed, the former owners of Units M/N reportedly did not contribute to the cost. One resident cited this as evidence that a landward residence had not been contemplated at the time. It was noted that the existing shed and electrical service on the landward parcel support the island parcels. The residents expressed concern that construction could interfere with that electrical connection and other existing rights or easements. Residents questioned whether condominium -association approval should be required. Residents noted that their own reconstruction projects had been tightly limited by the prior footprint and required ZBA review. Mr. Freerksen, a direct abutter, argued that the applicant had not established the historical use of the property, the right to relocate the dwelling from the island to the landward parcel, the status of existing utilities and easements, or the ZBA's authority to grant the requested relief. Other residents noted that emergency access to the island is possible. Firefighters pumped water across the lake during the 2009 fire, and emergency responders have traveled to the island on another occasion. The lake can also reportedly be crossed on foot when frozen. The Board did not consider these continents as resolving the broader zoning issues. Due to the extensive questions and additional information that the Board had requested, he asked for a continuance. The Board agreed this was warranted since the property is exceptionally unusual and the application involves condominium law, noncontiguous land, an island, and zero frontage. They also noted the new state variance "practical difficulty" statute. Motion by Mr. Benner -Potash, seconded by Mr. Valanzola, to continue the public hearing on the application for 1769 West Street to October 20, 2026 at 7:00 pm with any additional materials to be submitted by Wednesday, October 14, 2026. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Minutes — August 18, 2026 Motion by Mr. McGarry, seconded by Mr. Berner -Potash to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Members were asked to review the proposed 2027 ZBA meeting schedule and identify conflicts before the next meeting. Meeting Minutes 09/22/26 Page 5 of 6 Motion by Mr. Benner -Potash, seconded by Mr. McGarry, to adjourn at 8:41 pm Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The next Zoning Board ofAppeals Aleeling will be on Oclober 20, 2026, at 7: 00 p.nt Clerk Date of Approval Documents Submitted for the Meetin 1. Meeting Notice and Agenda for September 22, 2026 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for August 18, 2026 3. Draft 2027 ZBA meeting schedule 4. 1769 West St. Application, supporting documents, and Continuance Reqnest to September 22, 2026 5. 126 Union Street application and supporting docuuments Meeting Minutes 09/22/26 Page 6 of 6