Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_032012MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 20, 2012 l The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hap,; MansfiQl MP ai 7r30; pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman;` Elisabef Garber - Miller, Clerk; Kevin Mackie; Philip Shannon; Associate Member James Rathbun; Associate Member John McKenna. 1 Meeting opened at 7:30 pm. 2. James and Lester Epstein, 900 Maple Street, Map 39, Parcel 11. The hearing is for an appeal filed by James and Lester Epstein of the Building Inspector's January 11, 2012 decision regarding 900 Maple Street in the Residential 1 (RI) zone. The appeal is of the building inspector's determination that the property is being used as a bulk material /sales yard in violation of Section 3.6.2 of the Mansfield Zoning By -law. Failure to comply with this request within seven (7) days of receipt of this letter will result in an enforcement action being commenced in Superior Court. The Epsteins have the right to appeal — Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A and the Mansfield Zoning By -laws, Section 7.2.2. Mr. Vuitaggio opened the hearing. Mr. Rathbun was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of David Luca. Mr. Epstein has requested the hearing be continued to the April 10, 2012 meeting to give him time to review and respond to the March 16, 2012 letter from Town Counsel. Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion to accept the request to continue the 900 Maple Street hearing to April 10, 2012. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. 3. Michael Earls, I29 Webb Place, Map 27, Parcel 122. The application is for a Variance from Sections 3.3.2 and 4.1.1 of the Zoning By -law to allow two duplexes (four units) on a lot at 29 Webb Place in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A" and a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B and the plan "Zoning Plan 29 Webb Place ", January 30, 2012 and stamped by Michael A. Trowbridge, Professional Land Surveyor, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., 200 Chauncy Street, Mansfield, MA, was labeled at Exhibit "C". Mr. Rathbun was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of David Luca. Planning Board letter dated March 15, 2012: Following discussion, with six (6) members present, the board voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation. The members feel this request is for a use variance, which is not allowed by the Zoning By -law. The proper way to address this situation would be a subdivision filing rather than through a variance application. Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates Inc. was present. The existing house on the lot is a three - family home, which Mr. Earl proposes to remove and replace with two (2) duplexes to the rear of the property for a total of 4 units. Mr. Trowbridge said the Housing Authority has thirty (30) units on a parcel not much larger than the property at 29 Webb Place. On the opposite side of the street there are three buildings, each with 12 two bedrooms units, on a lot one -third the size of 29 Webb Place. Mr. Trowbridge said Mr. Earl has offered a piece of the property that abuts the Cedar Court development on Wilson Place to the Housing Authority. On March 5, 2012, Mr. Trowbridge attended a meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. The Housing Authority expressed an interest in acquiring the land at no cost and voted to have their attorney look into the matter. Mr. Trowbridge said all outstanding taxes would have to be paid and the trailer and any debris on site would have to be removed. Town Counsel would also have to review the transfer of the land and an ANR Plan would have to be filed with the Planning Board to change the lot line. The letter dated March 14, 2012 from Michael Forbes, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, was read into the record by Ms. Garber - Miller. Mr. Trowbridge explained there is not enough frontage for two (2) lots and the width of the roadway would only be 20 ft., not large enough for a sub - division as the Planning Board had suggested. He said the present lot, at 61,489 square feet, is far larger than most of the surrounding parcels and is unique for this densely populated area. The opposite side of the street is Zoned B -2 which allows an extremely high density of development. He said most parcels in this area have roughly 12 units on lots less than 20,000 square feet. Mr. Rathbun asked about access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Trowbridge said the shared driveway will be wider than a normal entrance and the applicant is willing to deed an easement to the town so that large vehicles such as fire trucks can turn around. He said this would improve safety for the area residents. Carrie Seligman of 33 Webb Place asked whether drainage from this site would impact her property. Mr. Trowbridge said a site plan is not required when building a single - family or a duplex, He said test holes are done to determine where the ground water is and said the basement will have to be designed at two feet above ground water. He said the driveway will be designed to prevent water from sheeting onto the abutting properties. Timothy Ayres of 33 Webb Place asked if the sewer system could support the additional homes and who would maintain the driveway. Mr. Trowbridge said he has not applied for the sewer permit. He said a Homeowners Association would be responsible for the maintenance of the driveway. Mr. Ayres told the board he has no objection to the plan. Gary Forget of 34 Webb Place said removing the existing house and adding the duplexes will be beneficial to the town because the existing building is old and the duplexes will be built under the new building code. Mr. Vultaggio asked Mr. Trowbridge if the Housing Authority wants the land to expand the driveway for emergency purposes. Mr. Trowbridge said the Housing Authority is only interested in the land for future development. Hearing ended at 8:05 pm. Mr. Mackie made the motion to approve the variance for the two (2) duplexes for 29 Webb Place in accordance with the plan dated January 20, 2012. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Mackie said the lot is big enough to accommodate the duplexes. He said it is a large lot not being utilized properly with a small house that is in disrepair, so it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Ms. Garber - Miller said the project will create more usable green space and because of the shape of the lot, it makes more sense to build the duplexes at the back of the property. 2 Mr. Rathbun asked if the 10,000 square feet of land offered to the Housing Authority should be included in the motion. Mr. Mackie said the motion is only to approve the application before the board as per the plan. Mr. Vultaggio said the motion should be amended to include the land to be given to the Housing Authority. Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion to amend the original motion by Mr. Mackie to approve the variance for two (2) duplexes at 29 Webb Place as shown on the plan dated January 20, 2012 to include the applicant's offer of 10,000 square feet of the property to the Mansfield Housing Authority. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Mr. Rathbun asked if a new plan would need to be submitted. Mr. Vultaggio said a revised plan is not necessary but noted a plan to give the land to the Housing Authority would have to be submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. Mackie made the motion to approve the construction of two (2) duplexes at 29 Webb Place according to the plan dated January 20, 2012 with the stipulation that the owner of the property honor his offer to donate 10,000 square feet of the parcel abutting Cedar Court on Wilson Place to the town. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. 4. John and Sandra Fitzgerald, 3 Mayflower Drive, Map 41, Parcel 273. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, front yard setback, of the Zoning By -law to construct a farmer's porch with less than the required front yard setback at 3 Mayflower Drive in the Residential 1 (R1) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B" and the plan "Proposed House Addition at HSE. No, 3 Mayflower Drive in Mansfield, MA, dated January 23, 2012, and stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski, Professional Land Surveyor, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., 150 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA was labeled Exhibit "C ". Planning Board letter dated March 19, 2012: With six members present and following a discussion, the board voted five (5) in favor with one (1) abstention to send a positive recommendation only on the addition to the front of the house because of the orientation of the house. However the board did not make a recommendation on the proposed addition to the rear of the house, which encroaches into the rear yard setback, because it is not addressed in the application. A memorandum, dated March 19, 2012, from Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development, states following the Planning Board's review, additional information came to light regarding the submitted plan. The Planning Board made its recommendation based on the plan showing a "proposed" addition at the rear of the structure. The application contains no information about this "proposed" addition to the rear of the structure. The "proposed" addition in the rear of the structure was built approximately ten years ago. It was constructed by right, as the building inspector at that time deemed that to be a side yard, requiring only a 25 foot setback and therefore making the addition conforming. The plan was not updated for this application, which only proposes an addition to the front of the house, The memorandum is to reaffirm the positive recommendation on the requested front yard setback variance and to advise the Zoning Board of Appeals that there is no need for additional relief at the rear of the structure. Mr. and Mrs. Fitzgerald and David Scharff were present. Mr. Rathbun was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of David Luca. Because of the position of the house on the lot, there were some questions as to what is considered the front, rear and side yards and there are some discrepancies between the plan and the letter by Shaun Burke, Mr. Vultaggio suggested the hearing be continued so a new plan can be submitted showing exactly what is planned. He told the homeowners any decision tonight would be based on a plan that is incorrect. Mr. Fitzgerald said the plan is correct; there will be a farmer's porch and an addition. He said he needs a variance for the farmer's porch but the Building Inspector told him he did not need a variance for the proposed addition because it was well within the 25 feet required for a side yard. Mr. Vultaggio said based on what is on the plan before the board that is incorrect. If the Building Inspector ten years ago said it was a 25 foot side yard and the house was built on that information and ten years have passed, the house is legal. However if Mr. Fitzgerald wants to add on to the house, because he is adding on to the back area, he is encroaching in the dimensional by -law; Mr. Fitzgerald now needs a variance for the addition. Mr. Fitzgerald said 3 Mayflower Drive is their actual address but their driveway and mail box are on Pilgrim Way. Mr. Fitzgerald said he was told that the smaller frontage is considered the front which would make Pilgrim Way the front of the house. He said because it is a corner lot, the Building Inspector made a judgment call that it would be considered the 25 foot. Ms. Garber - Miller said the plan needs to be updated and the memorandum from Mr. Burke needs to be clarified. Mr. Fitzgerald told the board there was an addition done ten years ago and this addition is in compliance. This addition is to the left side (rear) of the house. Mr. Shannon asked if the addition would be one or two stories and if the farmer's porch would have a roof. Mr. Fitzgerald said it will be a two -story addition and the farmer's porch will have a shed roof. Mr. Mackie made the motion to continue the hearing for 3 Mayflower Drive to the April 10, 2012 meeting. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing closed at 8:40 pm. 5. Richard J. Madigan, Trustee, 31 Oxford Road, Map 44, Parcel 2012 and Map 8, Parcel55. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.4, off - street parking and loading and 4.4.1, off - street schedule of the Zoning By -law to allow the existing sports facility at 31 Oxford Road in the Planned Business District (PBD) to operate with 123 parking spaces. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B" and the plan "Parking Variance Plan for 31 Oxford Road in Mansfield, MA, dated February 1, 2012, and stamped by Michael E. Perrault, Professional Engineer, P.M.P. Associates, LLC, 200 North Bedford Street, East Bridgewater, MA 02333 was labeled Exhibit "C ". Mr. Rathbun was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of David Luca. Planning Board letter dated March 15, 2012: with six members present and following a discussion, the board voted four (4) in favor with one (1) opposed and one (1) abstention to send you a positive recommendation to allow 123 parking spaces at 31 Oxford Road. The members understand all of the originally proposed uses, for which the Planning Board made a parking finding, are not being conducted. Therefore, the originally approved number of parking spaces is not required. Michael Perrault of P.M.P. Associates, LLC, Richard Madigan, the owner of the building and Brian Coffey, the manager of the facility were present Mr. Perrault told the board that Dana Barros leased and permitted the property for a multi- function sports facility. It was to be a fitness center with a sports bar and lounge /restaurant as well as tennis courts, indoor fields for lacrosse and soccer, batting cages, event bleachers, golf and basketball camps. There would be 4,000 square feet of office space. As part of the of the Special Permit Decision and Parking Finding granted by the Planning Board to Dana Barros Basketball Camp, LLC on September 1, 2004, the Planning Board required the facility have a minimum of 147 parking spaces. In 2004, 97 spaces were available on -site and 211 spaces were available on the adjacent property in a leased parking space. Mr. Perrault told the board the complex envisioned by Dana Barros did not occur and the demand for parking has changed from the parking needs that were determined for Dana Barros in 2004. Mr. Perrault said the facility uses the 97 existing on -site parking spaces. They would like to add an additional 26 spaces for a total of 123 on -site parking spaces. Mr. Perrault said the town enacted a compact parking space by -law so the site can be reconfigured and adjusted in a few areas to create a total of 123 on -site spaces. He said the enforcement of the 2004 Special Permit parking requirement of 147 parking spaces on a property that can only have 123 parking spaces creates a substantial hardship. Mr. Perrault said the off -site parking spaces are not used, the property is being sold and the owner is not going to renew the lease for parking. When the property is sold and the off -site parking spaces are no longer available, 31 Oxford Road will have a zoning violation. Mr. Perrault said the members will continue to park on Oxford Road but the additional 26 spaces will alleviate some of the parking problems. He is asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a finding that 123 spaces are viable for this property. The lot coverage, setbacks and number of compact spaces will comply with zoning. Brian Coffey, the manager of the facility, told the board the people have never used the satellite parking area. Mr. Perrault told the board the lot has an odd shape and topography which required that the building be located in its current configuration with parking only located in the front and rear of the building; the land to the left of the entrance off Oxford Road starts to elevate toward the Water Storage Tank and the land to the right side of the building drops off to the wetlands, preventing parking on the sides of the building. The wetlands and the stream on and adjacent to the property impact the ability to expand the parking behind the building. The wetland resource areas and stream would trigger a filing with Conservation if any work was done in these areas. Mr. Mackie asked Mr. Perrault how the sub - compact spaces would be identified. Will you label the spaces so you get full utilization of the parking lot? Mr. Mackie said an SUV would take up two of the sub - compact spaces. Mr. Perrault said the parking lot will be striped. He suggested signage to identify the sub - compact spaces. Mary O'Brien - Miller of 202 Old Green Street, Foxboro said by striping the parking lot and the additional 15 spaces on the Green Street side will help with the parking problem. As long as the project does not interfere with the wetlands on both sides of the road, she does not have any issues with the application. Mr. Perrault said there are currently 37 spaces on the Green Street side; if the board approves the additional parking there will be a total of 52 spaces. Mr. Shannon said if you park in the Green Street parking area, you are not allowed to access the building on this side. Mr. Coffey said until 11:00 am, you can not use the Green Street entrance to the building. Mr. Coffey said very few patrons use this parking area. Ms. Garber - Miller said if the spaces in the Green Street parking area are counted, the spaces need to be available to everyone at all times or they can not be included in the 123 on -site spaces the applicant is asking for. She said everyone should have full access to the facility. She asked that this be included in the motion. Douglas Miller of 202 Old Green Street asked if there is handicapped accessibility. Mr. Perrault said they will follow the Massachusetts and Federal requirements; the number of accessible parking spaces is based on the total number of spaces. There is also a requirement for larger spaces to accommodate vans. The handicapped parking spaces are required to be closest to the door. Mr. Miller asked if left hand turns from the driveway out onto Route 106 could be eliminated with right -hand turns only. Mr. Perrault said they will make the driveway two lanes to alleviate part of the problem in this area. Mr. Vultaggio asked what the alternative is if the board does not approve the variance for the additional spaces. Mr. Perrault said if the application is denied, they will have to go before the Planning Board for an amendment to the Special Permit. He noted a variance stays with the land but the Special Permit stays with the business /applicant. John Gagnon of New England Controls at 9 Oxford Road said that parking on both sides of Oxford Road, blocking the lanes, and the speed of the cars on the road creates a very dangerous situation. He said anything to alleviate the parking problem would be good. Mr. Vultaggio said he did not think the additional spaces would help; maybe some type of enforcement would be better. Mr. Vultaggio asked if there were any other places for parking. Mr. Perrault said the 123 parking spaces can accommodate the people using the facility on week days, but not on weekends when it is at peak usage. Ms. Garber - Miller said the solution might be to ticket the cars parked on Oxford Road and the cul -de -sac. For the purpose of discussion, Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion to approve the request to reduce the number of parking spaces to 123 as shown on the plan prepared by P.M.P. Associates, LLC, dated February 2, 2012. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Ms. Garber - Miller said this is a forever solution to what could be a short term business problem. To go from 297 parking spaces which was the peak to 123 spaces seems like a drastic reduction of parking spaces. She said people are still going to park on Oxford Road. Mr. Vultaggio said 175 spaces is probably a more accurate number as to what the need is at peak usage, There are no alternatives and the off -site parking is no longer available. He said he is not concerned with future use of the facility because a change in the use of the building will require the owner to return to the Planning Board. Ms. Garber -Miler said the board can limit its decision to the scheduled usage formula at peak usage. The usage formula is on the plan and on page 3 in the "Parking Variance Memo. Mr. Mackie said the board should stipulate its decision is based on the peak usage formula and if it changes they would have to go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Mackie made the motion to amend the original motion to approve the request to reduce the number of parking spaces to 123 as shown on the plan dated February 2, 2012, prepared by P.M.P. Associates, LLC, with the stipulation that the decision is made based on the "Parking Variance Memo' attached to the application and shown on the plan. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Mr. Rathbun made the motion to approve the request to reduce the number of parking spaces to 123 parking spaces at 31 Oxford Road as shown on the plan prepared by P.M.P. Associates, LLC, dated February 2, 2012, with the condition that all parking spaces be made available to everyone during business hours and access will not be restricted based on the area of the building the user will be in or the activity in which they will participate; that the use of the building will not change; access from the Green Street parking lot is to be allowed throughout the building. This motion is subject to the fact that the uses of the property have changed since the 2004 Planning Board Special Permit was issued and are now limited to those specified on the plan. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Density and Dimensional Regulations of the Zoning By -law for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage and lot width at 425 Mill Street in the Residential R1 (R1) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B "; and the plan, "Plan of Land Jameson Property Mill Street, dated November 29, 2011 and stamped Michael A. Trowbridge Professional Land Surveyor, Hutchins — Trowbridge Associates, Inc., 200 Chauncy Street, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. was present, representing Mr. Edward Jameson. Mr. Vultaggio opened the hearing. Mr. Rathbun was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of David Luca. There was no Planning Board letter. Mr. Trowbridge submitted revised plans, addressing some of the concerns of the neighbors on Patriots Way. They asked if the applicant would consider an easement to do a berm or grading to block off the section of Mr. Jameson's property that abuts the Hobaica property at 12 Patriots Way. The 35 foot easement has been granted to Mr. Hobaica and the deed has been prepared. Mr. Trowbridge said the location of the house was not shown on the original plan; the new plan shows the location of the house. Mr. Jameson has owned the property of 27 years and started the landscaping business, which is located on Lot A, in 1988. Lot 2 was created in 1989 and recently was sold. Mr. Trowbridge said a new house will be built on Lot A and the existing garage will be removed. The frontage and shape of the lot are existing; they are not creating a new lot. Lot A has 143, 296 square feet, twice the footage that is required in a Residential 1 Zone. There is an existing paved driveway to the right of the property for access to Lot A. The barn and the greenhouses will not be removed and the landscaping business will continue to operate from the property. Lot 1 is owned by the Town of Mansfield with a 30 foot easement; it was sold off of the original parcel to be used for open space to the abutting cluster subdivision. Mr. Trowbridge said the land was zoned for agricultural use. Ms. Garber - Miller said it is a pre- existing business. What happens when you put a house on the property? It is not residential but you are creating a lot with two uses on it. Mr. Trowbridge said Mr. Riccio, the Building Inspector, is aware the application is for a new house and that the business will continue to operate. The new home is for Mr. and Mrs. Jameson and will allow him to oversee his landscaping business. Mr. Shannon asked if the property could be subdivided allowing one lot to be zoned for residential and the other zoned for business. Mr. Vultaggio said this is a pre- existing, non - conforming lot. Ms. Garber - Miller said the use of the land will change; now you have one lot with two different uses. Mr. Vultaggio said you are changing it to an allowed use. 7 Mr. Randall Tatum of 385 Mill Street told the board the proposed project will change the character of the neighborhood. He told the board Mr. Jameson is sub - letting the property to other contractors. These contractors are storing equipment there. It was meant to be a garden center but has become a truck depot. He said the board should not allow the house to be built. He said at times there are people living on the property. Propane tanks are also being stored on site. Mr. Vultaggio told Mr. Tatum if he knows these things are going on, he should talk with the Building Inspector to address any violations that may occur on the property. These issues are not zoning issues. Mr. Tatum said there are wetland issues on this property that should be addressed. Mr. Vultaggio said these are Conservation issues not zoning. Ms. Garber - Miller asked if the house and business on Lot A could be sold separately and owned by different people. Mr. Vultaggio said this can not be done. You can not separate the house from the business. Ms. Garber - Miller also expressed concern that the applicant had created his own hardship by carving off Lot 2 as his own home originally and then selling it and leaving only the limited frontage. Jocelyn Infantino of 401 Mill Street asked if the business no longer exists, is it possible that more houses can be built on the property? Mr, Vultaggio said Mr. Jameson would have to buy back the town property to add more houses to the site. He would have to come back to the Zoning Board to request additional variances to create additional lots. Mrs. Infantino asked if the 30 foot right -of -way could become a roadway. Mr. Trowbridge said you need 110 square feet for a road. She asked if more buildings for the business could be built on the site. Mr. Vultaggio said yes as long as it is within the agriculture exemption. Hearing ended at 9:55 pm. Mr. Rathbun made the motion to approve the variance for lot width and frontage for 425 Mill Street as shown on the plan, revised January 5, 2012. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Mackie said even though this property was zoned agricultural, it is now a Residential 1 Zone. The statue is very specific as to what constitutes agricultural use. He said he does not have a problem with the application. Mr. Rathbun said it is a big lot. He said the board has passed applications with 30 feet of frontage in the past. He said he does not have a problem with the application. Mr. Vultaggio said this board is not a use granting authority. It is for the Building Inspector to say if it is or is not appropriate and not compliant. He said he agrees with this type of request because it is a large lot; 60,000 square feet is required and this lot is more than double the requirement. He said, when dealing with such a large amount of land, the owner should be allowed to put a house on it even without the required frontage. The shape of the lot is clearly the hardship. Mr. McClean said he agreed with Mr. Vultaggio. He does not see any negative ramifications by allowing the variance. Motion passed 4 -1 -0. 7, Old Business A request for legal services was sent to Town Council on February 8, 2012 regarding Brunelli Residential LLC, the owner of 20 Copeland Drive in Mansfield. Attorney Roy Cramer, representing Brunellli Residential LLC, had asked to meet with the board to discuss whether his client should seek a variance from the Zoning Board or a special permit from the Planning Board for the additional development of the property. Attorney Cramer believes that a special permit, rather than a variance would be the appropriate form of relief. After meeting with the Building Inspector and the Director of Planning and Development, both agreed with Attorney Cramer a special permit would be the best way accomplish the redevelopment of the property. Mr. Vultaggio wanted Town Council's opinion on meeting informally to discuss this matter without a hearing. Town Council suggested the request for an informal discussion with the board be put on the agenda with the understanding that a vote or binding action would not be taken. Town Council said the neighbors do not have to be notified about the discussion. All information has been sent to Attorney Cramer. Mr. Mackie made the motion to approve the February 7, 2012 minutes. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Motion to adjourn at 10.35 pm. Mackie /Garber - Miller. Next meeting is April 10, 2012. CIO 0 Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk Date