Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_040213MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 2, 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. Conroy Development Corporation, 600 West Street, Map 44, Lot 900, The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Front Setback and Section 4.4.1, Minimum Open Space of the Zoning By -law for the construction of a warehouse /distribution center building where 50 feet of front setback is required and 21 feet is proposed and where 35% open space is required and 25% 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 March 1, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; March 28, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; "Conceptual Site Plan of Land Plan of Land, dated February 26, 2013, and prepared by Bay Colony Group, Inc., Foxborough, MA. Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: the Planning Board, on March 27, 2013, with seven (7) members present and following discussion, voted five (5) in favor with one (1) opposed and one (1) abstention to send a negative recommendation and suggest the size of the building and amount of parking be reduced, which would allow conformance to setback and open space requirements. Attorney Edward Valanzola and Joseph Lynch, Senior Vice President of Conroy Development Corporation were present. Attorney Valanzola said he does not believe the Planning Board has the authority to make recommendations on ZBA applications because the statute was changed in the 1990s, no longer requiring that a letter of recommendation be submitted. Attorney Valanzola explained the property is an irregular, triangular shaped lot, consisting of 6.26 acres, abutting Route 495 and located in the Planned Business District. He said Conroy Development Corporation purchased the property in July 2007, with a plan to build a 104,000 square -foot office building, which would not have required relief from the Zoning Board or any other board or department. Because of the economy in 2008, the company was not successful in marketing this type of building. In 2010, an 80,000 square -foot research and development building was planned, which complied with all the ZBA By -law requirements. Again, there was no response. The new plan is for a 96,000 square -foot warehouse /distribution building, requiring relief from Section 4.2.2, front yard setback, where 50 feet is required and 21 feet from the property line is proposed. Mr. Valanzola said there is actually 37 feet from the edge of the roadway. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 4.4.1, Minimum Open Space, where 35% open space is required and 25% is proposed. Attorney Valanzola said the hardship is the triangular- shaped lot, topography and soil conditions. He said most of the setbacks have been met, with 1,123 feet of frontage, where 200 feet is required, and the rear yard setback is 38 feet, where 20 feet is required. He explained the building cannot be placed further back on the lot because of an embankment. 1 Attorney Valanzola said this property is in the Planned Business District with no residential properties, would generate tax revenue and jobs for the town and would be consistent with the Town Master Plan for the Cabot Business Park. Mr. Mackie asked about the number of parking spaces and wondered if the applicant was at the statutory minimum of parking space. Attorney Valanzola said they do not need relief from the parking regulations because there will be one hundred seven (107) parking spaces, with twenty -five (25) loading dock doors. Ms. Garber - Miller said a portion of the thirty -seven feet in front of the building is owned by the town. She said. she is concerned about trucks entering and leaving the property because of the curve and the hill on West Street in this location. She said West Street is a main roadway that goes through the west side of town and she was concerned about the increase in truck traffic in a mostly residential area. She said the other businesses in this area do not generate major truck traffic. Mr. Lynch said truck traffic will enter and exit to the left of the building. He said parking is planned on both sides of the building because there might be a second tenant for the building. Attorney Valanzola said site plan approval would be required. Mr. Luca noted that if the front of the building was designed differently, reducing the size of the building by thirty feet, or it was located 10 to 15 feet further back on the property, the need for a variance from the front yard setback would be eliminated. Mr. Lynch said they do not want to reduce the size of the building because there is no market for a smaller building and the larger building is necessary for the warehouse /distribution center. Mr. Shannon said there are other design options for the building. Mr. McKenna said he supports the plan but agreed the traffic concerns need to be addressed. Mr. Luca made a motion to grant the request for a Variance from Section 4.4.1, Minimum Open Space of the Zoning By -law, for the construction of a warehouse /distribution center building with 25% open space where 35% is required, at 600 West Street, as shown on the plan, "Conceptual Site Plan of Land Plan of Land, dated February 26, 2013, and prepared by Bay Colony Group, Inc., Foxborough, MA. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said the shape of the lot does create a hardship. Mr. Rathbun said the building is consistent with the other buildings in this area and the applicant is just trying to utilize all available space on the lot. Motion passed 4 -1 -0 (Luca, Garber - Miller, Mackie, Rathbun /Shannon). Mr. Rathbun made a motion to grant a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Front Setback, for the construction of a warehouse /distribution center building where 50 feet of front setback is required and 21 feet is proposed at 600 West Street (Assessor's Map 44, Parcel 900) in the Planned Business District (PBD), as per plan, "Conceptual Site Plan of Land Plan of Land, dated February 26, 2013, and prepared by Bay Colony Group, Inc., Foxborough, MA. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Discussion 2 Mr. Luca said the applicant could reduce the size of the building or it could be located further back on the property, but based on the proposed use of the building, this would reduce the number of loading docks. He said the proposal is not detrimental to the neighborhood, but asked if the extra thirty feet in the front of the building is necessary. He said this application does meet the hardship requirement, based on the shape of the lot. Ms. Garber - Miller said the 96,000- square foot building is being proposed based on what the applicant currently feels is most economically feasible and she is concerned about the location and safety of the ingress and egress to the parking lot. She said the applicant could avoid the front setback issue by adjusting the size of the building which she said is based strictly on economics and not what would fit the property. When asking for relief, it should be based on what would safely and appropriately fit the property. She said the By -law is there for a reason and she is not for overturning and granting variances from the Zoning By -law because of the applicant's pocketbook. Mr. Mackie said a smaller building would not be attractive for marketing purposes and he feels this plan makes sense for this area. He said he would rather have a building twenty -one feet from the property line than a vacant lot and said there is enough visibility for truck traffic. Mr. Shannon commented that the size of the building is driven by financial reasons. Mr. Rathbun said there are economic reasons to develop this property and he is concerned about the truck traffic, but it is a vacant lot that currently does not generate any revenue. He said it is a good plan. Mr. McKenna said there are economic reasons to develop this property. The lot is vacant and does not generate any taxes. He said it is a well- designed plan, but agreed the traffic issues need to be addressed. Attorney Valanzola asked if the board would consider revising the motion to grant a variance for a 30 -32 -foot setback, which would provide more of a buffer. Mr. Rathbun said the applicant came before the board with a plan for a 21 -foot setback and the building cannot be moved further back on the property without encroaching on other setbacks. Mr. Mackie asked if Mr. Rathbun would like to amend his original motion. Mr. Rathbun said no, but said the applicant can submit another plan. Motion to grant the request for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Front Setback, failed 3 -2 -0 (Luca, Rathbun, Mackie /Garber - Miller, Shannon). 3. Greg Spier, 129 Rumford Avenue, Map 21, Parcel 144, The application is for a Finding/Variance from Section 4.2.1, Side Yard Setback of the Zoning By -law to construct a deck and stairs at the pre- existing, non - conforming house at 129 Rumford Avenue in the Residential 3 (113) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance filed with the Town Clerk's Office on March 6, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; March 28, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; "Zoning Plan 129 Rumford Avenue ", dated March 3, 2013, and prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA. Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: The Planning Board, on March 28, 2013, with seven (7) members present, and following discussion, voted five (5) in favor with two (2) opposed to send a positive recommendation because this'is a pre- existing, non - conforming lot and house, which pre -dates zoning. Mark Lightbody, representing the applicant, was present and explained this is a three - family home and the owner would like to add a three -story deck with stairs as an additional means of egress. This is a pre- existing, non- conforming lot, with the house eight feet from the side property line where fifteen feet is required. He said when 9 Mr. Spier purchased the property in April 2012, the first and second floors had front and side entrances, but the third floor unit had only one entrance at the rear of the property; the proposed deck will provide a second egress for this unit. Mr. Shannon said having one entrance to the third floor unit is a safety issue and this will be an improvement to the building. Hearing ended at 8:15 pm. Ms. Garber - Miller made a motion that the proposed construction of a deck with stairs at 129 Rumford Avenue constitutes an increase in a pre- existing, non - conforming condition. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Ms. Garber - Miller made a motion to grant the Finding/Variance because the proposed construction at 129 Rumford Avenue of a deck with stairs would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing condition. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said this is not a single - family home, the foot print will not change and the addition of the deck and stairs will make the property safer and be beneficial to the neighborhood. Ms. Garber - Miller said currently there is only one egress for the third floor unit. Mr. Shannon said the addition of the deck and stairs will create a safer environment for everyone. Motion passed 5 -0 -0 4. Khalil Adra and Ibissam Janoudi, 975 Maple Street, Map 40, Parcel 194. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Side Yard Setback, of the Zoning By -Law, for the construction of a deck and stairs with less than the required side yard setback at 975 Maple Street (Assessor's Map 40, Parcel 194) in the Residential 1 (R1) Zone. The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on March 12, 2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; March 28, 2013 letter from the Planning Board; "Zoning Plan 975 Maple Street ", dated July 18, 2012 and revised March 12, 2013, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA. Ms. Garber - Miller read the Planning Board letter into the record: The Planning Board, on March 28, 2013, with seven (7) members present, and following discussion, voted five (5) in favor with two (2) opposed to send you a negative recommendation because this appears to be a self- created hardship. Attorney Edward Valanzola and Khalil Adra, the homeowner, were present. Attorney Valanzola explained Mr. Adra purchased the home in July 2007. In the summer of 2012, Mr. Adra and a friend, neither of whom has a builder's license, added a deck to the left side of the house without a building permit. It is a second floor deck off the master bedroom and also serves as an emergency exit. The deck is approximately 12.5 feet off the property line in an R1 Zone where a setback of 25 feet is required. E Mr. Adra was notified by Nicholas Riccio, the Inspector of Buildings, that he needed to obtain a "post construction" building permit and a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be necessary. Attorney Valanzola explained Mr. Adra did not know he needed a permit to do exterior work. Mr. Mackie asked if the deck had been inspected by the building inspector. Attorney Valanzola said Mr. Riccio and Assistant Building Inspector Lee Day have inspected the deck and believe it has been constructed correctly with the proper footings. Attorney Valanzola said if the requested relief is granted, there will be a full inspection to make sure the deck complies with the building code. Attorney Valanzola said when the house was built it complied with all the zoning setbacks, with 25 feet on the left side and 40.5 feet on the right side. Michael Lewis of 2 Lewis Road said this is obviously an encroachment and asked what the setbacks are for a deck. Attorney Valanzola said a 25 -foot setback, measured from the lowest step, is required in an R1 Zone; he said the neighbor immediately abutting Mr. Adra's property was not present and obviously is not concerned. Evan Epstein of 5 Lewis Road said the abutter is not present tonight because of other commitments. Michael Campo of 6 Lewis Road asked why a full inspection has not been done on the deck. Attorney Valanzola explained the deck will have to be removed if the requested relief is not granted. Mr. Shannon asked if permits were obtained for the new slider and the electrical work; Mr. Adra said he applied for these permits after Mr. Day told him he would need permits for any interior work. Michael Campo said the deck is not visible to the direct abutter because of a buffer of trees on Mr. Adra's property, but was concerned Mr. Adra would prune or cut the trees. Ms. Garber - Miller said Mr. Adra can remove the trees on his property if he wants, and said if he were to sell the property the new owner could also prune and cut the trees. She noted a Variance would stay with the property. Mr. Luca said the deck is very close to the property line and questioned whether it was detrimental to the neighborhood. Attorney Valanzola said Mr. Adra made an honest mistake and is here before the board seeking relief as Mr. Riccio suggested. He said because none of the neighbors most impacted are present at tonight's meeting, to require Mr. Adra to remove the deck does not make sense. Ellen Gleason of 14 Lewis Road told the board she did everything legally by applying for the necessary permits and hiring a contractor when she installed a pool. She said she was not allowed to add a deck because of the 25 -foot setback requirement Evan Epstein said the Lewis Road neighbors do not want the deck removed, but said Mr. Adra needs to understand he is part of a neighborhood and should follow the rules. Ms. Garber - Miller said it would have been an entirely different discussion tonight if the deck had been built legally, because the board could have told Mr. Adra he had other options, either to build the deck on the back of the house or on the other side of the property. She said the town loses revenue when work is done without permits and she does not want to encourage this behavior. Mr. Luca said Mr. Adra should have come to the board before he started the work. Hearing ended at 8:45 pm. 5 Mr. Rathbun made a motion to approve the Variance from Section 4.2.1, Side Yard Setback, of the Zoning By -law, to construct a deck and stairs with less than the required side yard setback at 975 Maple Street in the Residential 1 (Ri) Zone, as per the plan dated July 18, 2012 and revised March 12, 2013, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Ms. Garber - Miller seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said he does not believe there is a hardship because of the shape of the lot and said there were other places to build the deck, a deck that was not necessary for additional egress. He said the house is no longer in compliance because of the deck and if this were a new filing, he would suggest Mr. Adra build the deck in the back of the house or on the other side of the property. Mr. Rathbun said he feels there is a hardship because of the odd shape of the lot and the placement of the house on the property, but agreed there were better locations for the deck. Ms. Garber - Miller said if Mr. Adra had come before the board to build the deck, the board would have had the option to say yes or no, but the deck has already been built. She said this is something she would normally vote against, but agreed Mr. Adra made an honest mistake. Mr. Luca said he does not want to see the deck removed, but the variance runs with the land forever and this is not a little mistake. Mr. Shannon said, as a licensed contractor, if he had done this work, he would have lost his license and been fined. He said he believes Mr. Arda was unaware he needed a permit. Mr. Mackie said it is an odd shaped lot, the deck is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and there were no strong objections from the direct abutters. Motion failed 3 -2 -0 (Mackie, Garber - Miller, Rathbun /Luca, Shannon). 5. New and Old Business: The decision for 472 -480 Chauncy Street, Frederick E. Giovino and Joan E. Giovino (Variance) was signed. Mr. Rathbun made a motion to approve the minutes of March 5, 2013 and March 19, 2013. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. 6. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:30 pm: Luca /Rathbun. Passed. Next meeting will be May 21, 2013 at 7:30 pm. k. Elisabe h Garber - Miller, Clerk Date 0