Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 01/16/01 (' f ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEPJEO TOWH GL~R\\,S OFF ICE 0\ JAN 25 M1 9: 22 j'lANSr"IELO MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2001 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; Eric Butler; Olivier Kozlowski; Jack Vuhaggio; and Scott Austin. Mr. Vultaggio was appointed Acting Clerk for this meeting. Mr. Devine asked that "Reorganization" be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The hearing on the application of Mansfield Spring Brook Cemetery Corp. for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1 and 1.5.17a of the Zoning By-Law to allow for a lot, which contains an existing house, with less than the required lot width/depth, said lot located at 88 School Street in the R-2 began at 7:30 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Plan of Land School Street for Mansfield Spring Brook Cemetery r Corp. dated November 11, 2000 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit ''C''. Mr. Vultaggio read a letter from the Phmning Board into the record. "With seven (7) members present, the Board voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Due to the unique shape of the lot, as determined by the shape of the adjacent lot containing the cemetery and its outbuildings, the Planning Board feels a variance may be granted." (' Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case. Karen Bregnard, Clerk for the Mansfield Spring Brook Cemetery Corp., introduced herself and explained that this is a pre-existing dwelling and is over 100 years old. The house was buih in 1865, on one large parcel owned by the cemetery and until recently was occupied by the caretaker. The house is now under agreement to be sold to a private party who intends to rehabilitate and occupy the house. The cemetery cannot create a legal lot to deed to this buyer witho.ut losing its storage garage or encroaching upon grave plots. If the variance is not granted, the house cannot be sold and the cemetery will be forced to let it full into :further disrepair or bum it down. The cemetery is currently having difficulty paying for the upkeep of the grounds and needs income. The sale of this house will allow the cemetery to continuing operating and will not create any hardship to the Town or the abutters. In fact, the Town will benefit from tax revenues paid by the new owner and the neighborhood will benefit by having an old house remodeled. The hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. (' MINUTES OF JANUARY 16,2001 Page 2 of3 A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to grant a variance to the cemetery. Unanimously granted (5-0) (Devine, Butler, Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Austin). The hearing on the application of Georgica Partners, LLC for a Special Permit, per Sections 4.3.5.A and 4.3.6(B)(1)(a) of the Zoning By-Law to allow deviation from the Landscaping provisions, by providing for a IS-foot landscaped buffer where 22-feet is required, with the work occurring at the proposed office building located at 800 South Main Street in the RD Zone began at 7:50 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhtbit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Landscape and Lighting Plan by Gates, Leighton, and Associates dated 7/5/00 and revised on 10/23/00 and 11/28/00, and prepared by Tilton and Associates, Inc., One George Leven Drive, Suite 100, P.O. Box 467, North Attleboro, MA, was labeled as Exhtbit "C". Mr. Vuhaggio read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With seven (7) members presents the Planning Board voted five (5) in favor with two (2) opposed to send a positive recommendation. It was the opinion ofthe r majority of the Board that the proposed IS-foot buffer strip is better alternative than 22 feet, which is required by the Zoning By-Law. Strictly enforcing the Zoning By-Law in this case by requiring a wider buffer would decrease the width of the parking lot travel lane, while not increasing the number of plantings within the buffer strip. Finally, a majority of the Planning Board is of the opinion that the shape of this lot makes strict conformance to the by-law difficuh, at best. The Planning Board would also like to note that the issue of pedestrian access, while perhaps not appropriate for this site, may need to be addressed as it is required by the Zoning By-Law. " Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case. James David Simmons, Esq., Vice President of Planning and Development Services introduced himself and Larry Tihon, of Tilton and Associates, the Engineers on this project. Mr. Simmons explained that they represent the applicants in their plan to develop a three-story office building adjacent to 800 South Main Street (Route 140). They are requesting that the Board grant a Special Permit to allow deviation form the requirements of the By-Laws which requires a landscaped buffer along the street frontage with a minimum depth of 1/3 the distance from the street (right-of-way) line to the building face. Under the By-Law the minimum buffer width on any side is 15 feet and the buffer width for the site plan proposed would be 22 feet. Mr. Simmons further stated that he believes that both of the conditions are satisfied by the proposed plan, namely, (' (""" MINlITES OF JANUARY 16,2001 Page 3 of3 (1) the alternative landscaping arrangement proposed by the applicant is clearly preferable for the site and surroundings than one strictly conforming to the standards of the Section; and (2) It is impractical to provide the specified depth of the landscaped area due too the size, shape, or other characteristics of the parcel beyond the control ofthe applicant and the alternative arrangement proposed by the applicant provides equal benefits to the site and surrounding areas. Mr. Simmons further explained that due to physical constraints ofthe property, which include existing adjoining buildings and parking, landscaped areas, and drainage patterns, they propose to construct a landscaped buffer 15 feet wide, with another, separate landscaped area 10 feet wide adjacent to the proposed building (part of this smaller buffer will be a 4 foot wide pedestrian walkway). While they would shift the layout of the parking area to achieve a 22 foot street buffer per the By-law, doing so would leave only a three foot planting area adjacent to the building, with no sidewalk. The two landscaped area, taken together, prove a tota1landscaped area width of23.5 feet (19.5 feet of which will be planted.) Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant why they could not just build a smaller building. The r applicant explained that they could, but it would not be as attractive. The applicant further stated that they are only before the Board for one issue and everything else is before the Planning Board. Pictures of the property were present to the Board. The hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to grant a Special Permit to Georgica Partners for landscaping. Unanimously granted (5-0) (Devine, Vultaggio, Butler, Kozlowski, Austin). A motion was made by Mr. Vuhaggio and seconded by Mr. Butler to approve the Minutes of November 14. Minutes approved. A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Butler to approve the Minutes of December 19. Minutes approved. The meeting adjoumed at 8:30 P.M. r