Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_052113MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 21, 2013 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:15 pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Kevin Mackie, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk; David Luca; Philip Shannon; James Rathbun; Associate Member John McKenna. 1. Meeting opened at 7:30 pm. 2. Brian Keenan, 18 Highland Avenue, Map 18, Parcel 62, The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Density & Dimensional Regulations: Lot Frontage and Area and 1.5.17a, Lot Width, of the Zoning By -Law for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage, area and lot width at 18 Highland Avenue (Assessor's Map 18, Parcel 62) in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on March 28, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; May 16, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; "Proposed Lot Division at No. 18 Highland Avenue in Mansfield, MA ", dated October 12, 2012, and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc.; Undated letter from Margo Lemieux Fisher, 22 Highland Avenue; Undated petition signed by six (6) abutters. Associate Member John McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: the Planning Board, on May 15, 2013, with seven (7) members present, considered the application and following discussion, voted six (6) in favor with one (1) abstention to send a negative recommendation on this application because it does not meet the statutory three -part test for the grant of a variance. Mr. Keenan would like to sub - divide the property at 18 Highland Avenue to create a new single- family lot. He said the property is currently in compliance with the Zoning By -law with 14,571 square feet and 145.54 feet of frontage. He said the hardship associated with this property is that the Rumford River passes underground at the southwest corner of the lot and there is a relocation easement, so a literal enforcement of the by -law would prevent a home from being built on the lot. Mr. Keenan said the majority of the homes on Highland Avenue, Allen Street and Chauncy Street are on 7,000 -7,500 square -foot parcels. He said Lot 1 would have an area of 8,090 square feet, where 10,000 square feet is required but would have sufficient frontage and lot width. Lot 2, with the existing single - family home, would have 7,065 square feet of area where a minimum of 10,000 feet is required, 65.54 feet of frontage and lot width where 80 feet is required. Mr. Mackie explained this is a 14,571 square -foot conforming lot that the applicant wants to divide into two non- conforming lots. He said the total square footage of the proposed lots shown on the plan, 7,065 square feet and 8,090 square feet, would create a 15,155 square foot lot, so a revised plan showing the correct lot area would have to be submitted. He said he does not see a hardship. Mr. Keenan said the hardship is that many of the lots in this neighborhood are non - conforming by today's Zoning By -law and were created through variances or have been grandfathered; he said compliance with the by -law is the exception rather than the norm. He said he is not creating 1 anything that is out of line with the rest of the neighborhood and is not asking to do anything the homeowners have already been allowed to do. He said the hardship is that the property cannot be used to its full potential, and if the property is sub - divided, it will not diminish the value of the other lots in the neighborhood because the houses are on smaller lots and closer together. Ms. Garber - Miller said if the property is divided into two lots, it would affect the new lot, but not the existing lot. She said she does not believe the Rumford River creates a hardship. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., said the existing house located in the upper area of the parcel is affected by the Rivers Act, but the second lot would not be because the Rumford River goes underground. Mr. Luca said the easement on the property does not affect the plan because you cannot build within the easement. He said he does not see how this creates a hardship. Mr. Keenan said there is a petition (Exhibit "B ", attached to the application) in support of the project, signed by six abutters. A letter was received from Margo Lemieux Fisher of 22 Highland Avenue stating she has no objections to the application. Ms. Garber - Miller read the petition and the letter into the record. Mr. Keenan said he and his family have lived at 18 Highland Avenue since 2006. He said because of the real estate market, the value of the house has decreased and subdividing the lot to allow the construction of a new home would mitigate some of this loss. He said the construction of a new house would increase the town's tax base. The hearing ended at 7:45 pm. Mr. McKenna made a motion to approve the request for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Density & Dimensional Regulations, Lot Frontage and Area and 1.5.17a, Lot Width, of the Zoning By -Law for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage, area and lot width at 18 Highland Avenue (Assessor's Map 18, Parcel 62) in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca agreed the proposed house is not inconsistent with what already exists in the neighborhood, but said by granting the variance, you are taking an existing conforming lot and creating two non- conforming lots. He said the lots would not have the depth the other houses in the neighborhood have because there is an easement and the paper road portion of Allen Street. Mr. Luca said while a lot of the other houses in this area are on narrow lots, they have sufficient depth, increasing the area of the lot. Mr. Mackie said the application does not meet the hardship requirements. Motion failed 0 -5 -0. 3. Colleen Wade, 1779 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 363. The application is for a Finding from Section 3.10.48, Change, extension, or alteration of a non - conforming residential structure, of the Zoning By -Law, to raze the existing single - family house and construct a new single - family house on the pre- existing, non - conforming lot at 1779 West Street in the Residential 1 (111) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for Finding, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on March 29, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice: May 16, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; Plan "Proposed House 2 Location at Hse. No. 1779 West Street in Mansfield, MA ", dated March 15, 2013 and revised May 13, 2013 and June 18, 2013, prepared by Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Associate Member John McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: The Planning Board, on May 15, 2013, with seven (7) members present, considered the application and following discussion, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application for a Finding. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. represented the homeowner. He said Ms. Wade is currently going through the process for Conservation approval of this project and a revised plan, dated May 13, 2013, has been submitted because the Conservation Commission requested the house be placed farther away from the lake. He said a number of homes in this neighborhood share a common driveway and the lots have no real frontage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the pre- existing, non - conforming single- family house at 1779 West Street and construct a new single- family house. Mr. Mackie said relocating the house would result in a reduced side yard setback and asked if the existing house would be entirely removed. Architect Steve Nelson, of Nelson Associates, said as a condition for Conservation approval, a portion of the exiting house will be retained so it can be considered a renovation rather than a new structure. Ms. Garber - Miller explained that if the existing structure were completely removed, this application would not be a Finding and the new house would have to comply with current zoning regulations. Because the application was filed for the demolition of the existing home, she said it should be clear that a portion of the existing structure will be incorporated into the new house. Mr. Mackie said a revised plan, showing the portion of the existing house that will become part of the proposed house, would have to be submitted. Leslie Hollander, 1775 West Street, said she supports the project and it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Amy DeMelia, 1777 West Street, said she is in favor of the project. The hearing ended at 7:55 pm. Ms. Garber - Miller made a motion that the proposed alteration to the existing house as shown on the plan dated May 13, 2013 is a significant increase in a pre- existing, non - conforming condition. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said this project will not be any more detrimental to the neighborhood, the foot print is better, the proposed house is farther back from the lake and there will be no further encroachment. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Ms. Garber - Miller made a motion that the changes as shown on the plan dated May 13, 2013 are not significantly more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non - conformity. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: W Ms. Garber - Miller said a significant portion of the existing house will be incorporated into the new house and a more detailed plan will be submitted showing the section of the existing house that will be retained. She said the proposed house will be located farther back from the lake. Ms. Garber - Miller amended her motion to state the granting of the Finding is subject to the submission of an updated plan showing the portion of the existing house that is to be incorporated into the new house. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Mr. Mackie said this is a private community, the house is old and the proposed house will farther away from the lake. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. 4. Douglas and Judith Maxwell, 29 Henry Street, Map 21, Parcels 53 -56, 68 -72. The application is for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1, Density & Dimensional Regulations: Lot Frontage and Area and 1.5.17a, Lot Width, of the Zoning By -Law, for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage, area and lot width at 29 Henry Street (Assessor's Map 21, Parcels 53 -56, 68 -72) in the Residential 2 (112) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 16, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice: May 16, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; Plan "Proposed Lot Division at Hse. No. 29 Henry Street in Mansfield, MA, dated November 12, 2012, prepared by Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Associate Member John McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: The Planning Board, on May 15, 2013, with seven (7) members present, considered the application and following discussion, voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this application because it does not meet the statutory three -part test for the grant of a variance. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., and homeowners Douglas and Judith Maxwell, were present. Mr. Maxwell said they have been Mansfield residents all their lives and purchased the house in 2001. Mr. Maloon explained the property was divided into three lots prior to the adoption of zoning and each lot has a separate deed. He said the owners would like to create two lots; Lot 1 where the existing house is located would have frontage on Henry Street and Lot 2 with frontage on Alden Street. He said the new lots would fit in with the neighborhood, because while there are a few larger lots, most of the neighborhood is comprised of smaller lots. Mr. Mackie said Lot 2 would be created by combining two of the existing lots and asked how the application meets the requirements of a hardship. Mr. Maxwell said the enforcement of the Zoning By -law would create a hardship, as many pre- existing, non - conforming lots exist in this area and many have houses that would not meet current zoning regulations. He said he is asking for a similar consideration that was given to a previously successful application. Mr. Maxwell said the property was three separate lots when zoning was adopted. He said the existing house is on Lot 1 and he wants to combine the remaining two lots to make a second lot. The new lot will be 10,000 square feet, which is larger than most of the lots in this neighborhood. He said there will be no impact to the neighborhood if the variance is granted. 0 Joseph Milani of 277 West Street agreed that if a house had been built 50 years ago, it would look like all the other houses on the street and would not be out of place. He said there is some confusion regarding the information on the application; it says the three separate lots were existing prior to zoning but the plan shows one lot being divided into two lots. He wants to be sure the lot fronting on Henry Street is not sub - divided, creating two much smaller lots. He said the variance request is for both the Henry and Alden Street lots and asked why the Henry Street lot requires a variance if they are separate lots. Mr. Luca said the three lots together are conforming, but dividing the land would create two non - conforming lots. Hearing ended at 8:10 pm Mr. Shannon made a motion to grant a Variance from Sections 4.2.1, Lot Frontage and Area and 1.5.17a, Lot Width, for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage, area and lot width at 29 Henry Street (Assessor's Map 21, Parcels 53 -56, 68 -72) in the Residential 2 (112) Zone. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said the proposal is not out of line with the neighborhood and would not be any more detrimental. He said this is an odd - shaped lot, but this does not create a hardship. He said Lot 2 is larger than most of the properties in this area, and the variances required for Lot 1 are for pre- existing conditions. He said this is one conforming lot, but if the lot is divided, two non - conforming lots would be created. Ms. Garber - Miller said the issue is the hardship. The applicant is taking a conforming lot and dividing it into two non- conforming lots; once divided, two lots have been created with less than the required frontage. Motion failed 1 -4 -0 (Shannon /Mackie, Garber - Miller, McKenna, Luca). Mr. Rathbun arrived. S. Michael T. Bulman (lack Conway & Company, Inc., Realtor), 66 West Street, Map 26, Parcel 66. The application is for a Special Permit under Section 3.10.4 of the Zoning By -Law for a change, extension or alteration to a pre- existing, non - conforming structure or use at 66 West Street (Assessor's Map 26, Parcel 66) in the Residential 2 (R2) Zone. The proposal is to change the existing, non - conforming auto sales use to a general office use with free- standing and building signage. No changes are proposed to the exterior structure, drainage or parking lot striping. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Special Permit, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 16, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice: May 16, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; Plan "Zoning Plan 66 West Street" dated March 25, 2013 and revised May 29, 2013, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Ms. Garber - Miller recused herself from this hearing. Mr. Luca was appointed Acting Clerk and Associate Member John McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Mr. Luca read the Planning Board letter into the record: The Planning Board, on May 15, 2013, with seven (7) members present, considered the application and following discussion, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation for this application with the suggestion that the parking spaces labeled 24 -30 on the March 25, 2013 plan, not be used for customer parking to avoid drivers backing out onto West Street. Attorney James Chaisson, Edward Tartufo and Michael Bulman of Jack Conway & Company, were present Attorney Chaisson explained the application is for a Special Permit to change the pre- existing, non - conforming auto sales use to a real estate office. Jack Conway & Co. will purchase the property and plans to relocate the business from its current location at 272 Chauncy Street. They will be looking for a tenant to complement their business, specifically an architect, accountant, civil engineer or attorney. Attorney Chaisson said there will be no exterior structural changes to the property, except to add signage. He said partitioning and a demising wall consistent with office use will be added to the interior. He said Jack Conway & Co. has maintained an office in Mansfield since 1995 and will purchase the West Street building to make a further commitment to the community. Attorney Claisson explained the business is located in an R2 zone, with a residential property to the right and the Police Station to the left. He said changing the use of the property from auto sales to office space will result in less traffic and congestion and will be visually more pleasing. He said the real estate office will have office hours from 9 am to 6 pm, with an office manager and one or two sales associates. During the course of a day, other associates will come and go, staying for short periods of time. He said generally there are no evening hours and any tenant would keep similar office hours. Attorney Claisson said Jack Conway & Co., Inc. has an in -house property management company with property managers, carpenters, painters, interior designers and maintenance staff to implement any work that is needed. Attorney Claisson said signage is critical to this type of business and, as part of the Special Permit, the applicant is requesting a street sign and two small building signs, one for the real estate office and one to identify the tenant. He said a Request for Determination of Applicability for the free - standing sign was filed with and approved by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Mackie said there are 30 parking spaces provided, 15 more than required. He asked if the applicant would consider reducing the number of spaces and providing some type of barrier to prevent cars from backing out onto West Street. Attorney Claisson said this is a reasonable request to eliminate the spaces for safety reasons. Mr. Luca said parking spaces 17 -30, at the front of the lot, could be eliminated. Mr. Bulman said they will remove these spaces. Mr. McKenna said this would be an improvement, but there are valid concerns about the parking. Nancy Wall, 78 West Street, asked where the sign would be placed. Mr. Bulman said the sign will be on the left side of the property. Vicki Dias, 86 Dean Street, said her grandfather originally owned this property and was told the land could never be developed because it was near conservation land. She asked how two businesses on the property would reduce traffic. Mr. Mackie said the application is for a change in use, not the footprint of the building, and the real estate office with a tenant will not have the amount of traffic associated with the auto sales business. David Loving, 78 West Street, said when the building was constructed in May 1995, the special permit required planters be placed along West Street to prevent cars from exiting the parking lot onto West Street; he said the planters were never installed. Stacie Hooper of 73 Campbell Street agreed the parking issue needs to be resolved and suggested landscaping or a barrier to prevent cars from backing out onto West Street. Hearing ended at 8:35 pm 3 Mr. Luca made a motion to grant a Special Permit for a change of use from the pre- existing, non - conforming auto sales use to general office use with free - standing and building signage at 66 West Street, Map 26, Parcel 66. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion. Mr. Luca said he had concerns about the parking. Mr. Mackie said the board could require the submission of a revised plan eliminating the parking area closest to West Street. Mr. Rathbun said the motion should include a barrier or landscaped border to limit traffic from entering and existing from the parking lot. Mr. Luca amended his motion to require the applicant submit a revised plan, showing the elimination of parking spaces 17 -30 and the ingress and egress from the parking lot being narrowed with a barrier. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Discussion: Mr. Rathbun said this is a better use of the building and traffic will be reduced. Mr. McKenna said this will be an improvement, and as long as the parking issue is address, he does not have a problem with the proposal. Mr. Luca said there will be less pedestrian traffic crossing West Street between Old Colony Motors at 77 West Street and this site. 6, Conroy Development Corporation, 600 West Street, Map 44, Lot 900. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Front Setback, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of a warehouse /distribution center building where 50 feet of front setback is required and 31 feet is proposed at 600 West Street (Assessor's Map 44, Parcel 900) in the Planned Business District (PBD). The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 19, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice: May 16, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; Plan "Conceptual Site Plan of Land ", dated April 10, 2013, prepared by Bay Colony Group, Inc. Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: The Planning Board, on May 15, 2013, with seven (7) members present, considered the application and following discussion, voted five (5) in favor with two (2) abstentions to send a positive recommendation for this application. The site appears to meet the statutory tests for the grant of a variance, including the odd shape and topography, conditions which especially affect this parcel but do not affect generally the zoning district in which it is located. Attorney Edward Valanzola and Joseph Lynch, Senior Vice President of Conroy Development, were present. Attorney Valanzola explained an application was presented to the board at the April 2, 2013 public hearing showing a 96,000 square -foot warehouse /distribution center with the applicant requesting variances from the front yard setback and open space requirements. The board granted a variance to allow 25% open space where 35% is required, but the front yard setback variance was denied. The new plan, dated April 10, 2013, shows a 91,200 square -foot building and Attorney Valanzola said the only variance requested on this plan is for the front yard setback. The building will be 31 7 feet from the property line with an additional grass buffer along and between the front property line and West Street. The open space will be 31 %. Attorney Valanzola said the Conroy Development Corporation purchased the property in 2007. A 104, 000 square - foot office building was planned in 2008, but because of the economy, there was no interest in the site for office use. In 2010, an 80,000 square -foot research and development building was planned, again with no responses or prospects. Attorney Valanzola said there is a hardship because of the irregular, triangular shaped lot, which limits suitable areas to locate the building, and the topography of the site, particularly the slope /elevation that was created when Route 495 was developed. Attorney Valanzola said site construction costs will exceed five million dollars and provide construction jobs, with the potential for permanent jobs. He said tax revenue to the town will increase substantially. Mr. Mackie said the building size, the driveway entrance and exit and truck traffic were concerns when the original application was presented. Attorney Valanzola said the building has been reduced from 96,000 square feet to 91,200 square feet and there will be only one entrance /exit, located to the left of the building and 10 feet farther down on West Street. Attorney Valanzola asked that if the board should vote favorably to grant the variance, it be noted that this application is materially different from the previous application. Hearing ended at 8:50 pm. Mr. Rathbun made a motion to grant a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Front Setback, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of a warehouse /distribution center building where 50 feet of front setback is required and 31 feet is proposed, with one driveway, at 600 West Street (Assessor's Map 44, Parcel 900) in the Planned Business District (PBD), noting that the plan dated April 10, 2013 is materially different from the plan presented at the April 2, 2013 meeting. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said at the April meeting he was concerned with the proximity of the building to West Street and visibility issues with truck traffic. He said this plan is substantially different because the size of the building has been reduced by 5,000 + /- square feet, the building is 31 feet from the street instead of 21 feet as originally proposed and there is only one entrance and exit that has been moved father down West Street, providing better visibility for traffic entering and exiting the property. He said this is a much better plan. Mr. Mackie said all the concerns have been addressed. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Old Business: Reconsideration of the decision for 975 Maple Street: Attorney Valanzola originally indicated he would file a request for reconsideration of the application presented at the April meeting. His clients, Khalil Adra and Ibissam Janoudi, after speaking with Building Inspector Nick Riccio, have decided to request that the board allow them to withdraw F:3 their variance application, without prejudice. Attorney Valanzola said the applicants will file a new application, the abutters will be notified and the filing re- advertised. Mr. Rathbun made a motion to accept the request to withdraw the application for 975 Maple Street, without prejudice. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Stacie Hooper of 73 Campbell Street asked if she could come before the board with some questions and comments. Mr. Mackie suggested she come to the next meeting. A Question and Answer Session will be added to the June agenda. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Shannon /Rathbun. Motion passed. Next meeting will be June 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm. Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk Date E