HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 06/18/02
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
r-
r",....,
l..i(' NDV 21
MINUTES
JUNE 18, 2002
I I.
,~,'t "~ ("",
4l'~ ,:'.:
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,
Chainnan; Olivier Kozlowski, Clerk; Richard Devine; Eric Butler; Scott Austin; and
Peter DeTrolio, Associate Member.
The hearing on the application of Richard Loomer for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, of
the Zoning By-Law to allow for a garage addition to an existing house which will result
in less than the required side yard setback, said house is located at 68 Patty's Road 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 a Proposed Garage Addition on Hse. No. 68 Patty's Road in Mansfield,
MA dated May 2, 2002 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA, was
labeled as Exhibit "C". No Planning Board letter was available.
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
r
Mr. Loomer explained that he would like to construct an attached two-car garage. They
have two small children and two cars, and a two car garage is what esthetically fits into
the neighborhood. The lot was high and fill had to be taken out to build the house. Also,
the septic system is in the front of the house. The applicant further stated that this is a
one story addition with no room over it.
The hearing closed at 7:40 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Devine and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Mr.
Loomer with the condition that this is a one story addition. Unanimously granted (5-0).
Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Devine, Butler, Austin. Reasons: shape oflot; no impact on the
neighborhood.
The hearing on the application ofMellissa Pennellatore for a variance from Section 4.2.1
of the Zoning By-Law to allow for an addition to an existing house which will result in
less than the required side yard setback, said house is located at 6 Black Pond Road in the
R-l began at 7:45 P.M.
r
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
ExhIbit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan Lot 1195 #6 Black Pond Road dated May 12,2002
and prepared by Hutchins- Tro\\> Oridge Associates, Mansfield, MA, and labeled as Exlubit
"C". No Planning Board letter was available.
/0: II
J I ~
f' i~! (J'
J ',I}q 3 -."
"'fdJSfTTs
r- MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2002
Page 2 of6
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present her case.
Ms. Pennella tore explained that in 1995 she put an addition on with a plan submitted by
her builder which showed 18' to the side yard. Two months ago they put in an $8,000
septic system and when they applied for a building permit to put a second floor on her
existing addition it was discovered that there was not 18' but only 4'3"to the side yard.
The applicant further explained that her son is severely handicapped and the deck and
ramp already exist on the house.
The Board discussed that this was clearly a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and
should it be a finding or a variance. The Board decided a variance was advertised and a
variance should take care of this problem for the future.
The hearing closed at 8:00 P.M.
r
The hearing on the application of William Lewis and Patricia Gagnon for a variance from
Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law to allow for an addition to an existing house which
will result in less than the required side yard setback, said house is located at 23
PIantingfield Road in the R-l Zone began at 8:00.
The application was labeled as Exlubit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
ExhIbit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan 23 Plantingfield Road dated April 29, 2002 and
prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, MA, was labeled as
Exhibit "C". No Planning Board letter was available.
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Mr. Gagnon explained that they are requesting a side yard variance to build a garage with
a porch attached to his home. First, they would like it to be on the highest elevation on
the property near the existing driveway. This would place it away from any potential
water or drainage problem areas. There have been multiple problems with water from
Balcom Ridge Estates overflowing onto our property just to the west of the existing
driveway. The existing driveway is on the west side of the house and the garage would
be placed at the end of the driveway. There is also an existing 4 foot high granite
retaining wall between the driveway and the house which prevents a garage from being
placed on this side of the house. The proposed location does not interfere with the septic
system which is located near the northwest corner of the house and does not inter with the
solar collection system. They heat their home and water with solar. The glass collection
~
r-- MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2002
Page 3 of6
areas and these solar panels for the hot water are on the south side. Further, there is only
one window on the first level and it is on the north side of the entry door. Placing the
garage away from the house will allow for some natural light to enter that window.
The final reason for this addition is that the primary entrance into the house is located at
the center rear. In order to attach the garage to this entrance the only feasible location for
the garage is behind the house as shown on the drawing. Our house faces true south and
the primary entrance is on the north side. During the winter there is no sun on the north
side and the existing walkway can be very slippery. The plan includes a covered
walkway that can be enclosed during the winter and this would eliminate ice at the
entrances.
The Board had a question as to why this was a side yard setback issue and not a rear yard
issue. The applicant explained that they spoke with Bert Cook and he explained that it is
a side yard.
r
The applicant also explained that the closes house to the rear, Balcom Ridge, is
approximately 120 feet.
The hearing closed at 8:15 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Stephen Arcieri for a variance from Section 4.2.1 of the
Zoning By-Law to allow for an addition to an existing house which will result in less than
the required side yard setback, said house is located at 550 Fruit Street in the R-l Zone
began at 8:15.
The application was labeled as Exlubit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
ExhIbit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan 550 Fruit Street, dated May 2, 2002, and prepared
by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, MA, was labeled as Exlu"bit
"C". No Planning Board letter was available.
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Greg Cauldwell explained that he is presenting the applicant. They would like to
construct a 22'x26' addition on the rear of the house. They have stepped the addition in
as fur as practicable while still achieving a usable room. However, due to the way the
property line angle back toward the house the rear comer of the addition enters into the
,-...
r- MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2002
Page 4 of6
side bound setback by 2.1 feet. Also, the house is 80% in Mansfield, and 20% in Norton.
The children attend Mansfield schools. There is also an abandoned underground gas
pipeline. They also narrowed the addition to 22' feet which was needed to have decent
sized bedrooms.
Mr. Kozlowski read a letter dated June 16, 2002 from Edward Murphy, 546 Fruit Street
into the record. "I am writing to you in reference to the application submitted to the
Town of Mansfield by Steven and Liz Arcieri, 550 Fruit Street for a variance relating to a
building project at their residence. As the adjoining neighbor, I fully support their
construction plans. Accordingly, I hope you will grant them the requested variance."
Tom Wisnaskas, 7 Nathan Road, had no objection to this application.
The hearing closed at 8:25 P.M.
r
The hearing on the application of Janice Nevius for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1 and
1.5.17a of the Zoning By-Law to allow for the construction ofa single family house on a
lot with less than the required frontage and lot width, said lot located at Assessor's Map
40, Parcel 86 [R-I Zone] with the frontage adjacent to 45 Winter Street began at 8:30
P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
ExhIbit "B"; and a Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA dated August 1, 1999 and revised on
April 14, 2000 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA, MA, was
labeled as ExhIbit "C". Mr. Kozlowski read a letter from the Planning Board into the
record. "With six (6) members present the Board voted unanimously to send no
reconnnendation due to insufficient information. The Board agrees the lot is oddly
shaped, but because the application does not explain when the lot was created, it is
impossible to determine what rights the land may have."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Mrs. Nevius explained that her mother, who was present, Joyce Findlen is the owner of
both pieces of property and currently resides in a single family home located on lot #82.
Her and her husband have lived in Norton for 9 years with their two children and are
looking to upgrade to a larger home to accommodate their growing family. The applicant
would like to move back to Mansfield because she grew up here and her grandfather left
this land to her mother so that she would be able to pass it along to her children in 1965.
r
.----.----. --- .-....--..--.....---...-..-...---.-.------.- -- - _.----_.._._~._--_._---~_.._--._--------.._.-----.----_..
MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2002
r Page 5 of6
Her mother is planning to sell her 95,832 square foot lot to her and her husband for a very
low price. The lot size well exceeds the zoning requirements as well as the surrounding
lots in the general area. The lot shall remain wooded and will only be clear to allow for a
driveway and the other area on which only one house will be constructed. The shape of
the lot, which is sufficient in size is causing the hardship. Mrs. Findlen stated that her
father told her that he had planned this lot to be a subdivision.
Tim Farrell, 65 Wmter Street, was opposed to this application. He presented pictures and
a petition signed by 12 abutters who are also opposed. Mr. Farrell's issues were (1)
safety, whether this was a driveway or a road; (2) non-conforming use, this property was
thought to be landlocked, and has been vacant since 1986; (3) scenic road act, Winter
Street was made a scenic road in 1987. Are any special pennits needed; and (4)
wetlands, will the construction affect groundwater, natural resources, endangered species,
etc.
Mr. Vultaggio explained that the Board is only here for two reasons; the frontage issue
and lot width. If there is any water or wetlands problems, the Conservation Commission
will have to approve it. He further stated that the Board has to balance everyone's rights.
r There is over 2 acres of land and one house will not change the water problem.
Elizabeth Madonna was opposed to this application because of the wetlands, no access
and the scenic road issue.
Dick Madonna was opposed because of the way the land drops off will they need to use
fill and then will they have a water problem.
Kathy Nickerson of35 Wmter Street lives next door and wants to know if this will be a
road or a driveway. The Board explained that it is a driveway, not a road.
The hearing closed at 9:05 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Austin to grant a variance to Ms.
Pennellatore of 6 Black Pond Road. Unanimously granted 5-0 (Vultaggio, Kozlowski,
Devine, Butler, Austin). Reasons: justifY the existence of this mess because this is the
reasonable thing to do; not more obtrusive; and there is no encroachment on the street.
A motion was made by Mr. Austin and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Mr.
Lewis of Planting field Road. Unanimously granted (5-0) (Vultaggio, Kozlowski,
Devine, Butler, Austin). Reasons: great lot buffer; retaining wall; septic system; this is a
solar house.
r
",.- MINUTEs OF JUNE 18,2002
Page 6 of6
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Austin to grant a variance to Mr.
Arcieri. Unanimously granted (5-0) (Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Butler, Devine, Austin)
Reason: only needs 2 feet.
A motion was made by Mr. Devine and seconded by Mr. Austin to grant a variance to
Janice Nevius to build one house on this lot. All in favor (Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Devine
Austin) All opposed (Butler) Motion passes 4-1. Reason: Topography, shape oflot;
common ownership; this is the best use for this land because a subdivision could put in 3
houses and that would not benefit the neighbors.
The Board discussed the issue of why the Boy Scout was a Special Permit and not a
Variance. The reason the Building Inspector stated was that the building is non-
conforming use.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
r
r-