HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 10/01/02
'\".....0
:\ . . f :~, ,.
j .,".. ~:"i ~'~ r"' t /'\ L
'..; ',' ;~ 1 L.. L
(
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
(,2 D[~C 3l, fU1 9: 37
MINUTES
-IJJ
I '
I"i {l,SS rc' USETTS
OCTOBER 1.2002
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; Peter
DeTrolio, Associate Member; and Bob Davis, Associate Member.
The hearing on the application of Sharpe Construction, Inc., for a Finding per Sections
3.10A.B and 6.2.2.D of the Zoning By-law to allow for the extension and alteration
[enclosing existing deck and adding new deck to the side of the structure] to a pre-
existing, non-conforming single family home, said property located at 15 Columbine
Road in the R-2 Zone began at 7:30 P.M.
(
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
ExhIbit "B"; and a Plot Plan 15 Columbine Road dated July 23,2002 and prepared by
Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, as labeled as Exhibit "C". Mr.
Kozlowski read a letter dated September 5, 2002 from the Planning Board into the record.
"With five (5) members present the Board voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation on this Variance because it does not appear the addition will increase
the existing non-conformity."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Charles Duncan and Kathleen Sullivan, the applicants, explained that they would like to
enclose their existing deck with windows and add another small deck on the side
approximately (15.03'xI2.70') with no enclosure on the front part of the new proposed
deck. The deck was originally buih 15 years ago when the house was buih.
The hearing closed at 7:35 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Devine that the finding addition
constitutes an extension of the non-conformity. Unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Devine that the extension is not
more detrimental to the neighborhood. Unanimously approved. Motion passes 5-0.
(Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Austin, Devine, Butler).
('
( MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1,2002
Page 2 of 11
The hearing on the application of Lennon Family LLC for a Special Permit and or
Finding per Sections 3.10.4.A and Band 6.2.2.B and D, or in the alternative, a Variance
from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law to allow for the alteration [creation of new lot
line] of property containing an existing 12-unit apartment complex located at 171 Ware
Street in the R-l Zone, where the revised lot will have approximately 92 feet of frontage
where the existing driveway to the apartments is located began at 7:45 P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exhibit ''B''; and a Proposed Subdivision Plan of Land Ware Street, Mansfield, MA
(Bristol County) Owner/Applicant: Jack Lennon 217 Elm Street, Easton, MA 02356, and
prepared by Coler & Colantonio, Inc., Engineers and Scientists, 45 Eastman Street, Suite
Two, South Easton, MA 02375, was labeled as Exhibit "C". Mr. Kozlowski read a letter
from the Planning Board into the record. "With seven (7) members present the Board
voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this Application. The
members felt that it would be inappropriate to grant any permit based on an applicant's
purely hypothetical assertions with no proof."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
r
Attorney Edward Valanzola introduced himself as attorney for representing the applicant.
He also introduced Jack Lennon, as the applicant; Aaron Cohen as personal lawyer for
the applicant; and James Burke as engineer for the project.
Attorney Valanzola explained that the subject property contains approximately 9.3 acres
of land. At the southerly end ofthe property are the only structures on the property, three
buildings containing a total of 12 residential apartment units. These building were
constructed in or about 1968. The buildings are served by a 92-foot wide driveway
entering from Ware Street. Approximately 400 feet farther north along Ware Street, the
property has additional frontage of approximately 140. Thus, the aggregate frontage, of
the property is approximately 232 feet. However, if the frontage requirement in the
Zoning By-Law may only be satisfied through contiguous frontage, then the property
does not satisfy the current frontage requirement of a minimum of200 feet, in that no
portion of the property contains 200 contiguous feet of frontage.
The applicant has been informed that Town Counsel is of the view that these buildings
(and their current use) constitute a lawfully existing non-conformity. John Lennon (the
principal of the applicant) also controls a parcel of land (cont1'lining approximately 1.3
acres) adjacent to the northerly lot line ofthe subject property. Mr. Lennon proposed to
combine the two properties; to retain the existing buildings without alteration; and to
utilize the IeD11'1ining land for development of a residential compound under Section 5.7
f'
MINUTES OF OCTOBER I, 2002
(- Page 3 of 11
of the Zoning By-Law. Approximately 4 acres of the combined property will be reserved
for the existing buildings, and the remaining land (approximately 6.6 acres) will be used
for the residential compound. Town Counsel has informed the applicant that, because the
land already contains structures, the improved portion of the property must actually be
subdivided from the rest of the land, so that the only unimproved portion of the land will
be subjected to residential compound treatment. . In the existing structures will have
frontage of only 92 feet-less than the 200-foot minimum frontage required under Section
4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law.
Mr. Valanzola further stated that some sort of relief is needed at this time with respect to
the new currently unimproved lot. However, it is not clear exactly what sort of relief is
required, as described below. Therefore, this application requests a finding, a special
permit and a variance, anticipating that the Board of Appeals will first determine which
relief is required, and will then, after applying the appropriate tests, grant that relief.
There will be no real change in the operation of the existing improvements. The same
driveway, which has always been used for access to the buildings, will continue to be
used for access. The portion of the property, which will be subdivided offfor creation of
r a residential compound, has never been used in connection with the existing buildings.
The change of the lot lines applicable to the existing improvements will not in any way
increase the detriment to the neighborhood. In addition, since the building and their use
will not change, and since the pre-existing lack of compliance with the frontage
requirement will continue as the only non-compliance with the applicable intensity
regulations, the change in the lot lines applicable to the existing improvements will not
create a new non-compliance with any other requirement of the Zoning By-Law. If either
a finding or a special permit is the appropriate relief: then that relief should be granted.
The client would like to divide the property and have the apartments on one side; which
will be on four acres; and a residential compound with four house lots on the other side.
The dotted line on the Plan is a separate parcel owned by Lennon Realty which will be
purchased arid added to Parcel A. The applicant is seeking a new property line for the
apartments and need a variance for the frontage.
Mr. Valanzola further stated that the septic system was upgraded a few years ago, which
is monitored by the DEP. There are 12, 2 bedroom apartments, giving each 1/3 of an acre
for each. Also this parcel is in a water protection district.
('
r MINUTES OF OCTOBER I, 2002
Page 4 of II
The Board discussed the continuance of this meeting and the applicant decided to update
the variance request.
An abutter, Jack Burns of 161 Ware Street stated that he has lived there for 30 years and
the original owner told him that there was to be no more extensions and the second
owner, Mr. Troy had septic problems, and the water table is very high. Also, he does not
believe that the existing driveway is 92' wide.
An abutter, Jack Cerqueira of 181 Ware Street was also concerned with the width of the
driveway. Also, because of the septic, there were times when he couldn't use his
backyard because of the smell.
An abutter, Danny Rose, 182 Ware Street wanted to know what is the hardship and why
doesn't anyone know about the septic system?
The applicant requested a continuance at 8:55 P.M.
( The hearing on the application of Thomas Herrick for a Variance from Section 4.21. of
the Zoning By-Law to allow for a proposed addition [Farmer's Porch] to an existing
house which will result in less than the required side yard setback, said house located at
15 Mystic Lane in the R-l Zone began at 8:55 P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan 15 Mystic Lane dated November 13,2001 and
prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as
ExhIbit "C".
Mr. Kozlowski read a letter dated September 19,2002 from the Planning Board into the
record. "With six (6) members present the Board voted four (4) in favor with one (1)
abstention to send a negative recommendation on the application.
Mr. Kozlowski read a letter dated September 19,2002 from Gregory and Deanna White
of II Mystic Lane Re: Application of Thomas Herrick for Variance 15 Mystic Lane,
Mansfield, MA 02048, Notice of Hearing October 1,2002, into the record: ''Dear Mr.
Kozlowski, we received your notice today of the hearing scheduled for October I, 2002
regarding a request by Thomas Herrick for a second variance for their property located at
15 Mystic Lane. We returned home this evening to find that the construction project at
15 Mystic Lane has changed significantly since the original application and hearing when
construction plans were submitted to the ZBA. Instead of a one-story addition consisting
r of "a large family room with a mud room area" extending to twelve feet from the
r
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2002
Page 5 of 11
(
property line as described in the application, it is now an imposing two-story addition
with what appears to be a second floor bedroom (with widow) that towers over our deck
and has a free line of sight into our master bedroom. What is being built differs radically
from what was presented to the ZBA and to us at the original hearing. The changes to the
original plan are unacceptable and we do not appreciate the Herrick's taking advantage of
the Town of Mansfield or us. The addition at 15 Mystic Lane, as constructed, is
unsightly, overbearing and will invade our privacy. In addition, after the first hearing
with the ZBA, Gregory White pointed out to Thomas Herrick that their play structure had
been moved on to our property, 11 Mystic Lane, without our knowledge or approval,
when a shed was installed at 15 Mystic Lane last summer. Thomas Herrick has not
moved the play structure as yet and does not appear to appreciate or recognize the
property line very clearly indicated on his own Site Plan of Proposed Addition submitted
with his original Application Form. We object to Thomas Herrick's request for a
variance for the construction of a Farmers porch and, given that the Herrick's have
neither followed through on their original plan nor recognized the property line, question
their intent to only build a Farmers porch. We are also concerned that the Farmers Porch
will be used as a gathering place, and/or will create additional noise and disturbance
when they entertain. We also strongly protest the changes to the original construction
plan, request that the Town of Mansfield direct the Herrick's to build only what was
originally approved by the ZBA and insist that the Herrick's move their play structure
back on to their own property. It is especially important that the plan structure be moved
before winter as we do not want to see their older children encouraging their youngest to
snow board down the slide in his sneakers after the first snowfall like we did last winter.
Sincerely, Gregory White and Deanna White."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Mr. Herrick discussed the matter of the appeals with the Board and the Board decided
that the appeal is not to be discussed and is on the agenda for October 15,2002. They are
only here to discuss the farmer's porch issue.
Mr. Herrick explained that the farmer's porch was on the original plans but he
inadvertently did not ask for the farmer's porch at that time. They are requesting to put a
farmers porch on the front of the new addition to match the :farms porch on the main
house.
An abutter, Gregory White stated that this is not a hardship, not necessary and this porch
will be 9' x 16' and is concerned that his will become a meeting place and will be very
noisy and it is near his bedroom and living room.
r-
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2002
r Page 6 of 11
Mr. Devine suggested a buffer or more trees, which might help.
Richard Fitzgerald of 19 Mystic Lane stated that they have been neighbors for 10 years
and they have never had a problem and they have 3 wonderful boys.
Kevin McCree of 10 Mystic Lane has lived across the street for 12 years and stated that
there is more to this than you want to know and this is a personal problem. He further
stated that this is a damn shame because the Herricks and the Whites were friends and
what is going on is wrong and they shouldn't be wasting our time.
The hearing closed at 9:20 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Terry Fitzgerald for a Finding per Sections 3.1O.4.B
and 6.2.2.D of the Zoning By-Law to allow for an alteration [modification of upstairs
area] to a pre-existing, non-conforming [less than the required front yard setback] house
located at 971 West Street in the R-l Zone began at 9:20 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 owned by Sheila M. Ristaino dated
November 11, 1991 and prepared by Frederick Lapham ill, P.L.S., 31 Morrow Street,
Mansfield, MA, was labeled as ExhIbit "c".
Mr. Kozlowski read a letter dated September 19,2002 from the Planning Board into the
record. "With four (4) members present the Board voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation on this finding because it does not appear the proposed alteration will
increase the existing non-conformity."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present their case.
Mr. John Haffey of J.T. Haffey Builders introduced himself to the Board and explained
that he was representing the applicant. Mr. Haffey explained that he originally was going
to just fix the roofbut it was in such bad shape and not up to code it was more expensive
to fix the roof than raise the whole roof. The will change the height from 22'6" to 25'6".
He explained that the top floor of the house is sagging and the roof is a potentially
dangerous situation. There is already living space on this floor and we propose to make
structurally sound and add one bedroom and bathroom with a 2-foot overhang. We will
not be changing the foundation, footprint or height of the house. The new addition will
mirror the style of the abutters to either side.
('
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2002
(" Page 7 of 11
The Board decided that new plans were needed and a decision would be made contingent
with receiving new plans.
The hearing closed at 9:30 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Janice Repetto for a Variance from Section 4.21. of the
Zoning By-Law to allow for an addition with less than the required side yard setback,
with the existing house located at 512 South Main Street in the R-2 Zone began at 9:30
P.M
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exlnbit ''B''; and a Proposed House Addition on No. 512 South Main Street in Mansfield,
MA dated July 1,2002 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA, was
labeled as Exhibit "C".
Mr. Kozlowski read a letter dated September 19,2002 from the Planning Board into the
record. "With six (6) members present the Board voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation on the application.
(
Mr. Kozlowski read two letters dated September 9,2002 into the record. "Janice Repetto
and Bill Dryden have reviewed their application with us. We would like to offer our
support on this application and encourage you to grant the relief requested. Mary-Lou
and Craig Cotton."
"Janice Repetto and Bill Dryden have reviewed their plans with us to apply for a
Variance or Finding at 512 South Main Street. In order to make this possible for them,
we agreed to sell them a portion of our land. This is now shown as Lot lA as shown on
their Plan. We would like to offer our support on this application and encourage you to
approve their request. Harvey and Doreen Finlayson, 514 South Main Street, Mansfield,
MA, 02048."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicants to present their case.
Mr. Dryden explained that because of their four children they need more living space and
due to the odd shape of their lot that is their hardship. They have already received a
variance for an addition to their home last year but they need more room and decided to
add more to rear of the house, where the addition will not be as visible and there is more
room in the back of the house than on the sides. Also, they have purchased some land
from their abutting neighbor, Mr. Finlayson, which has helped out the problem a little bit.
The hearing closed at 9:40 P.M.
r
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2002
r Page 8 of 11
The hearing on the application of Rosewood Realty Trust for a Comprehensive Permit
under the provisions ofM.G.L. Chapter 40B for a 48-Unit housing complex, with three
separate buildings proposed, which will have an affordable housing component, said
development to be located off of a proposed driveway running between Route 106 [near
the intersection with Rte. 140] and Copeland Drive, said property identified as Parcels I,
3-5,24, 37, and 50 on Assessor's Map 17 and located in the B-3 Zone began at 9:55 P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as
Exhibit ''B''; and a Proposed Elevation Plan Rose Wood Village 267 Chauncy Street,
Mansfield, MA, was labeled as ExhIoit "C".
Mr. Vultaggio explained that he checked with the State Ethic's Commission regarding his
relationship with Delphic Associates, LLC and presented a letter dated August 22, 2002
to the Board of Selectmen RE: Disclosure as Requirement by M.G.L. c. 268 section 23
(b)(3) Comprehensive Permit pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40B Applicant: Rosewood Realty
Trust. "Enclosed herewith please find the above referenced disclosure for your files.
Toddy, I spoke with attorney Peter Sturgis (sp) from the State's Ethics Commission
regarding this matter and he informed me that although he say no reason to recuse myself
from the above referenced proceeds, I should file with hour, the Board of Selectman, this
r Disclosure as Required by G.L. C. 268A Section 23 (b)(3). I have also attached a copy of
that statute for your convenience. Respectfully, Jack J. Vultaggio, Jr."
Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant to present his case.
Paul E. Cussen, Managing Member of Delphic Associates, LLC introduced himself as
representing applicant; Mujeebuddin Ahmed, Trustee of Rosewood Realty Trust; and
Patrick Gardner, Engineer and Environmental Botanist. Mr. Cussen explained that the
development will have 48 garden-style apartments to be situated in 3 buildings, 2
building each containing 12 units and I building containing 24 units. All of the units
shall be 2 bedrooms with a minimum of2 baths. The affordable housing is being
development pursuant to Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund (MHP) whereby 25%
of the apartments (12 units) will be rented to households whose annual income does not
exceed 80% of the annual median income for the Town of Mansfield and the rents with
utilities will not exceed 30% ofthe annual income for that family. Presently a 2-bedroom
apartment of approximately 900 square feet will be rented for approximately $910 per
month including utilities, with the market rate being approximately $1,250 per month.
The affordable units shall be evenly disbursed throughout the building. A Deed Rider
shall be recorded to insure long-term affordability. In addition the applicant shall enter
into a regulatory agreement/monitoring services agreement with the town and MHP.
These documents insure the affordability for the rents of the affordable units at
Rosewood Village of Mansfield.
r
MINUTES OF OCTOBER I, 2002
r Page 9 of 11
The property is a 13.64 acres parcel of land on Chauncy Street, close to Rt. 140,495 and
1-95. The site is presently zone B-3. At the present time the land is undeveloped, but
however, portion of the land has been black topped for parking lot purposes. The
surrounding area consists of a single-family home across the Copeland Drive on a north
border, office building across Chauncy Street on a south border, with a business on the
west border across Rt. 140 and U.S. Post Office on the east border. The proposal will not
derogate from the character of the neighborhood. The construction will be wood frame
with sprinkler system fire prevention and the design meeting the American Disability Act
(ADA) requirements. It will be serviced by municipal water and municipal service. The
pre and post development flows will be equal and the entire drainage system will be
designed and built in accordance with the DEP storm water best management practices.
It is hopeful that the local Zoning Board of Appeals, whereby residents of Mansfield will
receive preference for the occupancy of the affordable units, can issue an application.
The preference can be determined and regulated and coordinated by the Developer, the
Monitoring Agent, Housing Authority and or other entity designated by the ZBA The
applicant shall be responsible for any costs relating to the marketing of the affordable
units. We believe that the local impact of the development will be minimal and does not
outweigh the need for affordable housing. The development is to be connected to public
sewer and water systems. The impact on traffic on Chauncy and Copeland Streets will be
("' addressed in a Traffic Report prepared by Abend Associates to be presented at our first
public hearing. The wetland line has been delineated and approved by the Mansfield
Conservation Commission with said approval included in Tab Section 9 with a drainage
system designed in accordance with the DEP storm after best management practices. The
architectural style we believe is ecstatically pleasing and addresses a need for affordable
housing in the town of Mansfield.
Mr. Cussen further stated that this development will not create negative impact on the
neighborhood or the environment and will benefit the Town generally by providing the
needed affordable housing now in demand. Mr. Cussen also explained that the ZBA has
three (3) options: to either approve, deny or approve'with conditions. If the ZBA denies
this application, only the applicant has the option to appeal to the Housing Committee.
Mr. DeTrolio asked the applicant why this is a 40B and the site is Business Zoned? Also,
the existing zoning would not allow this. Mr. Cussen explained that a 40B overrides
local zoning. And if the site is eligible it is good for a 20-year period. Mr. Cussen
further stated that these plans are preliminary and the water problems have to comply
with the DEP.
The issue was discussed regarding the traffic problem and Abend Associates has no
traffic plans yet. They decided to wait until school is in session and then they will
produce a traffic report.
r
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 2002
r Page 10 of 11
The Board and Mr. Cussen discussed the guidelines by the Housing Committee, pro form
and financial. Mr. Cussen will send to the Board members a dozen copies of pro forms
with a list of waivers. The Board feh that they should know why the applicant needs
particular waivers.
The applicant said they will discuss these issues at the next meeting.
Patrick Gardener, Engineer, explained there is a 200 feet zone of wetlands in the River
Protection Area. There are 13.6 acres and 40% is the development site. They are 3 story
buildings, 32'-34' feet high, wood frame, 2-full baths and 2 bedrooms.
The hearing was continued at 11:30 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to deny a variance to
Mr. Herrick. All in favor of motion, Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Butler - All opposed to
motion Devine, Austin. Motion to deny passes; variance is denied. Reasons: Overkill;
never mentioned it at last hearing; doesn't like that he change the plans.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Devine to grant a finding to
r Fitzgerald. Unanimously granted (Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Devine, Butler, Austin):
increase in existing non-conformity, increase is not more detrimental to the
neighborhood; subject to revised plans.
A motion was made by Mr. Austin and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to grant a variance to
Repetto. Unanimously granted. Non-conforming before and more non-conforming.
(Vultaggio, Kozlowski, Butler, Austin, Devine).
Mr. Davis asked the Board to support to his Coalition to Reform (any contractor can
build a subdivision with frontage so planning is not involved.) A motion was made by
Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to join the Coalition. to Reform.
Unanimously agreed to join.
Michael Eagan presented a letter to the Board dated October I, 2002 re: Scott Eames,
Map 13, Parcel 9, ExhIbit ''0'' Revised on 12/18/01. ''Dear Board Members: The
Building Department has a building permit application for the above referenced parcel
On December 18, 2001 a variance was issued giving its landowner relief from the lot
frontage requirement of zoning. The recorded variance outlines conditions that must be
adhered to in order for that variance to be valid. ExhIbit D shows the approximated size
and location of a dwelling that your Board approved. At the public hearing I stated that I
was concerned about the meaning of the phrase "approximated location". I asked if the
r
MINUTES OF OCTOBER I, 2002
r Page 11 of 11
word "approximated" would be used to take into consideration any minor surveying error
in the placement of the house. The response was YES. My follow-up question as
whether that meant we should not expect to find half ofthe house outside the approved
defined area. At the hearing, one of the neighbors questioned the size of the proposed
dwelling 90'x40'. It was stated that this area was a block in which a dwelling would be
built. However, the submitted building plan requests block size of85'xII0, substantially
larger than the approved block. In addition, the approved plan calls for 40' facing my
rear yard. The approved 40' line of sign would increase to 110' n the submitted plan....."
Michael K. Eagan, 10 Patricia Road, Mansfield, MN,
The Board explained that the variance is for frontage and even if they moved the location
of the house they are in compliance in every way meeting all other zoning requirements.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
(
/'-~ ../ ~
V-~/-~// L--,
Olivier Kozlowski, Clerk
r