HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 10/26/00
~
r
RECEIVED
TOWN CLFP\><,S OFF\CE
00 OEe '2 PH 12: 02
HAHSFiELD
MASSACHUSETTS
M., RECEIVED
TO~1I'J r, ~P!<~ OFFICE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ,. ", ,... \. ..,
00 DEe - 7 AM 9: Z 3
~'IANSFIElD
MASSACHUSETTS
MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2000
The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA,
at 7:30 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: Richard Devine,
Chairman; Leonard Flynn, Clerk; Eric Butler; Jack Vultaggio; Elisabeth Garber-Miller,
Associate Member; and Peter DeTrolio, Associate Member.
The hearing on the application of Scott Austin for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the
Zoning By-Law to allow for an addition [garage and breezeway] with less than the
required side yard setback, said house located at 9 Robin Hill Road in the R-2 Zone
began at 7:30 P.M.
r.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exlnbit "B"; and a ZBA Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA 9 Robin Hill Road dated
November 6, 1998 and revised on October 5, 2000, and prepared by Bay Colony Group,
Inc., Four School Street, P.O. Box 9136, Foxborou~ MA, was labeled as Exlnbit "C".
Mr. Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "Wrth four (4) members
present, the Board voted three (3) in favor with one (1) opposed to send a negative
recommendation on this application.
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case.
Mr. Austin explained that he applied for a variance for this proposed garage,
34'x28'x24'xI9 with less than required side yard setback and was granted a little over a
year ago. He filed the documents in court and when he applied for the building permit,
was informed by the building inspector that the year had expired and he had to reapply
for the variance.
The hearing closed at 7:40 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Mr.
and Mrs. Austin for the proposed garage. Variance granted (4-1) Those in favor
(Devine, Flynn, Butler, Vultaggio) Those opposed - Garber-Miller.
r
The hearing on the application of Carlton Briggs, Jr " for a Variance from Section 4.7.4 of
the Zoning By-Law to allow for an identification sign for an existing subdivision [Carlton
Estates] with the sign larger than allowed and located in the right of way of Douglas
Drive, said sign to be installed at the intersection of Douglas Drive and West Street in the
R-l Zone began at 7:45 P.M.
('
Minutes of October 26, 2000
Page 2 of2
The application was labeled as Exlubit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exlubit "B"; a copy ofa Site Plan of West Street, was labeled as Exlubit "C"; and an
landscape sketch prepared by John B. Lienex, Linex Landscape Services, Foxhoro, MA,
was labeled as Exlubit ''0''. Mr. Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the
record. "Wrth four (4) members present, the Board voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation on the application."
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case.
Mr. Briggs explained that he would like to place a sign at the entrance to Douglas Drive
for "Carlton Estates". There are similar signs through town for other developments and
this will aid in identification not only in emergencies and other contingencies as well ass
the enhancement of the "scenic road" qualities of West Street.
The Board members requested that the applicant supply more information to them. They
requested a real plan, not a sketch, showing the size of the sign, size of the letters, and
exactly where the sign will be located, the height of sign, how high off the ground. The
plan should be prepared by an engineer or landscape architect, stamped and dated.
r
Mr. Briggs requested a continuance in writing.
The hearing closed at 8:15 P.M.
The hearing on Zoots which was continued from September 5, and October 3, 2000 was
heard at 8:15 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Butler to
grant a special permit to Zoots not to require a 10 foot buffer on the Copeland Drive
access side. Special permit approved 4-1 (Those in favor - Devine, Butler, Vultaggio,
Garber-Miller) (Those opposed - Flynn).
Red RoofInn, which has received a variance for a sign had sent to the Board a revised
copy of a sign and requested a change in what was granted.
Mr. Vultaggio stated that the new plan is less square footage, and he doesn't have a
problem with the request. Mr. Butler stated that the Board should not change an opinion
once the 20-day appeal period is over. The Board decided that Red Roofwill not be open
for discussion since the appeal period is over, and if Red Roofwants to file another
application to change the sign, they can.
r