Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 09/04/01 , . r- r- RECE\\!EO 1".),1 ('\ \="F', S OFf \CE Mansfield Zoning Board of Appea1S' ' Minutes of September 4,2001 0 \ NOV 2 0 ~M 9: 5 , Members present: Jack Vuhaggio, Richard Devine, Eric Butler, Olivier f1w'~\t. raer DeTrolio, and Elisabeth Garber~MilJer. t'l f-\ S S t\ C H IJ SET T S 1. Rockland Credit Union - Copeland Drive Elizabeth Garber~Miller appointed in place of Scott Austin for this portion of the application request. Attorney David Manoogian presented the additional information requested by the Board at the last meeting. This material showed the exact locations of the proposed signs and the material. The two signs, one placed at either end of the gable ends of the building, will not be internally lighted. Motion [Butler/Garber-Miller] to approve the Variance for the non- internally lighted signs to be placed on the gable ends of the building for the reason that the total square footage of the signs will be less than what would be allowed on the front of the building, recognizing that signage can not be placed on the front due to existing windows and the shape and design of the building and the signs will not substantially derogate from the intent of the by-law. Voted 5-0-0. 2. Mansfield Music and Arts Society - South Main Street Peter DeTrolio appointed in place of Scott Austin. R Devine states that the hearing was closed at the last meeting with no discussion or deliberation of the issues. He makes a Motion to re-open the hearing with notice in newspaper and abutter notices for purpose of gathering and accepting new information; no immediate second made. General discussion evolves around the questions of continuation of the hearing or a withdrawal of the application without prejudice. Ken Butler, ofMMAS, indicates that the group hired an attorney to look at various questions including whether the application should be for a Special Permit to extend a pre>-existing non-conforming use. The time frame for a second application is discussed. E. Butler raises the question of whether the current application is in fact a Use Variance request, which the by-law does not allow. Ken Butler submits a letter to the Board asking to withdraw the application without prejudice. Motion[DevinelButler] to accept the request to withdraw the application. Voted 5-0-0. 3. Other Business a. Minutes of August 21,2001 need to be corrected and rc>worked by Karen Lawlor b. Decision for Folkman and Zola, Chauncy Street variance, needs to be corrected to reflect motions and those voting. Co Decision for M. Buckley; changes to those making the motions and the exact wording need to be done. Board signed the decision and changes will be made as discussed. 4. Discussion with Ed Marehant on the Comprehensive Permit, 40B process R. Devine wants to make it clear that this discussion should not include anything specific to the application that has been made under the provisions of 40B. Only general information should be discussed. D. Lewis explains that Mr. Marchant is a Technical Advisor appointed by the state, through a grant program for which the Town submitted an application, to assist the Board in the various phases of the 40B process. E. Marchant explains his background in Comprehensive Permits, including 10 years in the for~profIt and 10 years in the non-profIt perspectives. He also teaches at the Kennedy School. Has worked as an Advisor to several communities across the Commonwealth, including Nantucket, Ipswich. Waltham, Hudson, and Georgetown. Projects have ranges in size from just a couple of units to 300 units. In r- Hudson, he is working as a Negotiator on the project, where he works with a staff coordinator and sometimes 1 or 2 members of the ZBA to discuss specific items. r The members of the Board introduce themselves and their tenures on the Board. [At this point in the evening, the applicant, John Mahoney, who submitted the current 40B application, arrives] E. Marchant explains that the hearing process can take several months, depending upon the complexity of the issues. A new type of funding program, the New England Fund, bas created an avenue to more 40B permit applications to be submitted across the state. Almost no state or federal funding subsidies are presently available for these types of affordable housing projects. States that if there is an extra ordinary benefit to the developer then there should be a public benefit also. The options for the ZBA on this application are: 1) Outright Denial- this would usually be based on public safety or planning issues. If an appeal was made to the Housing Appears Committee. they would usually try to get the parties to come to an agreement. If denied, the ZBA must have strong reasons and be able to defend its position. 2) Outright Approval 3) Approval with Conditions - this is the most common decision by a ZBA The state has a set of Local Model Rules outlining the procedures and process for a 40B permit. It a community has not adopted its own set of rules, then the state model applies. He explains the timeframes for the start of the hearing. drafting a decision, and appeal. The hearing can be kept open as long as new information is requested and the applicant is being treated fairly. r Once the hearing is open, there should not be any communication between members of the Board and the applicant. In order to vote on the application, each member must attend all of the meetings. Only a simple majority of the Board is needed to approve the project. He indicates that it is the applicant who is most interested in keeping track of who attends the meetings and it eligtble to vote on the application. E. Marchant explains that 40B usually kicks in when a community has less than 1 ()oAl of its housing stock devoted to affordable housing. A calculation of the land area of the community relative to land area of affordable housing can also be made. Group homes for mentally impaired individuals are counted. The application process for 40B contains several requirements relative to notice to the Town, control of the site, and a funding letter from an appropriate lending institution. The Board of Health and the Conservation Commission are the only two local board with separate jurisdiction over the project. A community usually follows the procedures for reviewing a project under 40B as it does for a subdivision. An in-house review of the issues is carried out, or some specific areas of concern [traffic, civil, wetland for example] might be turned over to an outside consultant for review. The state rules on 40B allows for the applicant to submit preliminary engineering plans. If a critical issue is identified, then the ZBA could ask for a more detailed plan. The impact of the project on the school system is not viewed by the state HAC as a big issue for a community to consider in the process. r- It is important to identify critical issues early in the hearing process. For the "exceptions" [almost like waivers from local by-law requirements] which the applicant has requested, the ZBA can ask for specific reasons why the requirements do not have be met. -' ("' The conditions that the ZBA includes in the decision can be specific, and could be ones that the Building Dept. would enforce through their building permit process. The inspection of certain components of the project could take place during the construction process. It is necessary for the applicant to have control of the site. The Board can also ask for an outline of the qualifications of the Development Team, and the references can be checked. Financial issues, relative to land value and development fees for example, are important. Having 20% go to the developer on homeowoership projects is not uncommon. There are restrictions on the re-sale of the properties. The state DHCD has a good example of a Deed Rider that can be used. Financial statements can be required and would be reviewed by a Technical Advisor or an Accountant. It was discussed that possibly at the second public hearing on the current application, it might be a good idea to have Mr. Marchant give a brief overview of the 40B process so that everyone at the hearing understands the process, possible outcomes, and the appeals procedures. General discussion on having the hearings taped by Cable Access but not broadcast. This will be investigated. Unanimous vole to adjourn 7 ~ ----:;tr.'""" r r-