HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 01/15/02
L_
nr-r
"!~:;~ ~~~IVtn
,,-, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS' ". ~. ';'::,; OF'F ICE
MINUTES 02 FEB 20 41'1 /0: I 0
h,ci.N itLD
JANUARY 15.2002 f'1ASSACNUSETTS
The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfiel~ MA
at 7:30 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio,
Chairman; Olivier Kozlowski, Clerk; Eric Butler; Scott Austin; Peter DeTrolio, Associate
Member; and Bob Davis, Associate Member.
The hearing on the application of Royal Oak Trust appealing a Decision of the Inspector
of Buildings, under Section 6.2.2.A of the Zoning By-Law and Sections 8 and 15 of
Chapter 40A, to issue a building permit for the foundation for the proposed Shaw's
Supermarket, located at 390 West Street in the I-I Zone, where Royal Oak Trust states
that certain COmponents of the proposed project are not in conformance with certain
sections of the Zoning By-Law, including but not limited to, 3.5.1, Definitions, 5.2.,
Earth Removal, and 4.3, Landscaping and Screening began at 7:30 P.M.
,,-
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exhibit ''B''; and Erin's Centre Route 140, Mansfield, MA, dated April 16, 2001 and
prepared by Appledore Engineering Inc., Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was labeled as
Exhtbit "C". Mr. Kozlowski read a letter dated January 10,2002 from the Planning
Board into the record: "With five (5) members present, they voted four (4) in mvor with
one (l) abstention to send a recommendation that the Zoning Board of Appeals uphold
the Decision of the Building Inspector."
Mr. DeTroIio was appointing voting member for this meeting in place of Mr. Devine.
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Attorney Edmund J. Gorman ofMoehrke, Mackie & Shea, PC, 137 Newbury Street,
Boston, MA 02116 introduced himselfas representing Royal Oak Trust, Inc.
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant why these issues are being raised if the permit was
only issued for a foundation.
/,.,-
Attorney Gorman, explained that there were a few reasons: (l) The project lacks the
special permit required by Section 3.5.1 of the Zoning By-Law. That section defines the
business classification "Retail Store" to included ''the display and sale of merchandise
within a building including but not limited to: grocery, deli, bakery...."; (2) The project
lacks the special permit for removal of earth material required by Section 5.2.2 of the
Zoning By-Law. The Section requires the Building Inspector to issue a special permit for
the removal of surplus material in certain instances. The application for the building
permit must show whether more or less than 150 cubic yards of earth material will be
.'
(' Page 2 of2
MINUTES OF JANUARY 15,2002
removed. On information and belief: the Petitioner asserts that more than 150 cubic
yards would be removed for the project; (3) The Erin's Centre development is a mixed
use project in that it includes retail, office and restaurant uses. Section 3.11 of the Zoning
By-Law prohibits in all zoning districts "all uses not specifically permitted by this
bylaw." The only mixed use specifically permitted by the by-law is set forth in Section
3.7.2, which allows certain mixed uses in zoning districts designated Bl, B2. 13. The
Erin's Centre development, including the Shaw's, is located in the II District; (4) The
landscape buffer strip associated with the Shaw's portion of the development does not
comply with Section 4.3.6.B of the Zoning By-Law. That section requires landscaped
buffer strips along a public way to be located one-third of the distance between the street
right-of-way and any b~Ji1ding line; (5) Section 4.3.9 of the Zoning By-Law requires
landscaped areas at lease 10 feet in depth "adjacent to buildings on every side of such
buildings that has a public access point, and shall contain trees and shrubs." The
Landscape Plan (Exhibit C) does not provide for landscaping for the northerly-most
public access point to the Shaw's; and (6) Section 4.3.8.B.2.a, concerning off-street
parking areas, requires that "At least one (l) landscaped divider island shall be provided
for ever four (4) parallel rows of parking." The Landscape Plan does not provide for the
requisite number of landscaped divider islands relative to the Shaw's.
r
Attorney Martin R. Healy, of Goodwin, Proctor LLP, Exchange Place, Boston, MA
02109 introduced himselfas representing the owner of the property. Attorney Healy
answered all questions brought forth by Attorney Gorman and explained that these plans
have been under review for a couple of years by the Building Inspector and the Planning
Board and every aspect of these plans have been carefully considered by all Boards.
The hearing closed at 8:40 P.M.
The Board took a 10 minute break.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to uphold the Decision
of the Building Inspector. All in favor (Vu1taggio, Butler, Kozlowski, Austin, DeTrolio)
Unanimously upheld. Reasons: The attorney was grasping at straws; he made a valiant
effort to prove his points, but he had nothing to work with; and the Board sees nothing
not to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. ~
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
u~
Olivier Kozlowski, Clerk
.~