The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutmin of zba 12/18/01 .( MINUTES ('" 1'- t'''; ... ,1 !"j ~ I" t:'1) ~" } ,:'~~~~~~~ ;,r~.... , ',' ",;,:", neCler- "-iJ t ' ,t 02 FEB 20 M'I to: 10 1'~ h r '. ;L.:; i E. UJ IASS/;,CHUSETTS (- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 18. 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: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman; Olivier Kozlowski, Clerk; Richard Devine; Eric Butler; Scott Austin; and Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Associate Member. The hearing on the application of Chris Cunniff for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law to allow for an existing house with less than the required front yard setback, with the house located on 16 Ridgeview Lane, Lot Number 17, in the R-l Zone began at 7:30 P.M. The application was labeled as ExhIbit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit ''B''; and an As- Buih Plan Lot 17, #16 Ridgeview Lane dated 10/1 0/0 1 and prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as ExhIbit "C". Mr. Kozlowski read a letter from the Planning Board into the record: r "WIth six (6) members present the Board voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the Variance. It was the opinion of the Board that there is nothing relating to the shape or topography of the land to warrant the finding of a hardship. The only apparent reason for the request is that a different house was buih than the one which was shown on the approved plan. The Board believes the grant of a variance would derogate from the intent of the by-law and would set a bad precedent." Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates explained that he was representing Mr. Cunniff. Mr. Trowbridge explained that this cluster subdivision has been in the works for 2 years. The 1997 plans had a 30 foot front yard setback and in September, 2000, the Planning Board changed the setback required from 30 feet to 40 feet. This change was appealed and the Superior Court judge issued the 40' change. The house was bQilt and only a small triangular shaped section on the garage is non- conforming. These are 20,000 square foot lots and the non-conforming section is 12' x 2.3'. There is only one house lot left to be buih and all the other houses were built correctly. The hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. r--. t r MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 Page 2 of 4 The hearing on the application of Anthony Uva for a variance from Section 4.2.2 of the Zoning By-Law to permit a multi-residence building with greater than the allowed Maximum Floor Area Ratio, with said building to be construCted in place of an existing structure located at 24-26 North Main Street in the B-2 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. The application was labeled as ExhIbit "N'; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exlnbit "B"; an Exlnbit Plan to accompany Application to the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 18,2001 and prepared by Prime Engineering, Inc., Civil Engineering _ Land Surveying - Environmental Assessment, P.O. Box 1088, 350 Bedford Street, Lakeville, MA 02348 Re: Marco Crugnale Property Mansfield Assessors' Map 23~ Lot 179, Corner of Fulton and North Main Street and labeled as Exlnbit ''C''; and Site and Floor Plans for Fulton Place 24-26 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA prepared by Main Street Architects, Weymouth, MA and labeled as Exlnbit ''D''. Mr. Kozlowski read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With five (5) members present, considered the above-referenced application. The Board voted four (4) in favor with one (1) abstention to send a positive recommendation on the Variance. The Board did not feel the construction of one, smaller house where two currently exist would create any additional detriment." r-' Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Anthony Uva introduced bimselfas representing the owner, Marco Crognale. Mr. Uva explained that Mr. Crognale has purchased the property and would like to build one building with 6 residential units. Mr. Crogna!e's original intent was to gut the building and renovate but after several consultations with the Mansfield Building Department and Planning Department, the best and most assured plan to bring the building into compliance with the current codes and standards, would be to demolish the existing two building and rebuild one with modern systems and designs utilizing the footprint and the existing Door plan. The location of the property falls under the B2 Zone. The total lot size of the property is 5700 square feet. The existing gross floor area of the buildings is 4926 square feet and they are requesting a maximum of 5200 square feet to rebuild a single building. This includes a small basement area for the Boiler and the Main Electrical Panel. . An abutter, Vincent Botti of34 North Main Street (Sweet and Crafty) had some concerns regarding parking problems and the definite height of the proposed building. An abutter, Judy Applebaum of 14 Fulton Street was also concerned with the parking and sidewalk conditions. She was also concerned with the height of the building since she has a pool and does not want it in the shade. .~ I r- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 Page 3 of4 Mr. Crugnale assured the Mrs. Applebaum that he would construct a fence for privacy. He further stated that right now the property is a mess and he is just trying to make it look better. He also lives on Rumford Avenue so he is very close to the property. Mr. Devine suggested putting four units instead of six units, to which Mr. Crugna1e stated that the only way he can afford this project is to create the six units. Four units is not worth the money and will not pay for itself, it is not financially viable. He had looked at this option before, but financially it does not work. The Board requested from the applicant that he submit figures showing the financial numbers concerning the difference between four and six units before a decision can be made. The applicant agreed to submit these to the Board. The hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. The continued hearing regarding Scott Eames for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the r- Zoning By-Law to allow for the construCtion of a house on a lot with less than the required frontage, with the lot located off Carol Road on Assessor's Map 13, Parcel 9 in the R-l Zone was continued at 9:00 P.M. Michael Trowbridge presented new plans to the Board which increased the no cut zones to 100 feet and to 40 feet. The Zoning Board Plan prepared for: Scott Eames dated October 1,2001 and revised on December 18,2001 were labeled as Exlnbit "0". Mr. Trowbridge further stated that he will not cut off any access until he is approved by all the Boards. Mr. Kozlowski read a letter from Steven P. Sacco, 15 Gale Lane, Mansfield, MA, dated November 14,2001 into the record. "I received and reviewed the Zoning Board Plan prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates on behalf of Mr. Scott Eames for the construction ofa house on a parcel with less than the requit"ed frontage (off Carol Road, Parcel 9, Map 13, R-1 Zone). I am. a direct abutter to this parcel and currently own the street frontage along Gale Lane and Carol Road. As related to the upcoming hearing before the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals, 1 support Mr. Eame's request for the construction of a house on a lot with less than the required street frontage. Based on the Plan, I do not have any concerns with the proposed activities." Mr. Trowbridge further explained that the next step for Mr. Eames is to go before the Conservation Commission regarding the exact location of the house and grading. r . ~ r- r r MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 Page 4 of4 An abutter Debbie Gordy stated that if the drive is put in she is not opposed to this variance request. Mr. Eagan :further stated that he is not opposed to this variance request since the applicant has tried very bard to work with the neighbors. The hearing closed at 9:00 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Austin to grant a variance to Mr. Cunni1f. All in favor: Vultaggio, Butler, Austin, Kozlowski - Opposed: Garber- Miller. Reason: The house is already buih and the mistake is only 2 ~ feet and it is because the Planning Board changed the setback. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Devine to grant a variance to Scott Eames with the condition that the driveway, if comes on Carol Road, will mvor the brook side of Carol Road. Unanimously granted: Butler, Devine, Vuhaggio, Austin, Garber-Miller. Reasons: The applicant went to great lengths to please the neighbors and work with the Board. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, v~ Olivier Kozlowski, Clerk