Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 02/01/00 (' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 1. 2000 The 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: Richard Devine, Chairman; Leonard Flynn, Clerk; Eric Butler; Jack Vultaggio; Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Associate Member; and Dave Hammond, Associate Member. Ms. Garber-Miller was appointed voting member for this meeting in place of Mr. Kozlowski. r- The hearing on the application of Mandeville Signs for a Variance from the Zoning By-Laws on the following Sections: 4.5 [Comer Lot] to permit a sign taller than allowed; 4.7.1.1 [Wall Signs] to permit signs on the front and side walls in excess of allowed square footage; and 4.7.1.2 [Free- standing Signs] to permit a sign in excess of the allowed square footage, said signs to be located on the new CVS building at the comer of Chauncy Street and Giles Place within the B-3 Zone began at 7:30 P.M. o The application as labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B II; and a six (6) page Set of Plans dated June 1, 1999 (Drawing No. I-367F) and prepared by Mandeville Signs, Inc., 676 George Washington Hwy., Lincoln, Rhode Island, 02865-4255, was labeled as Exhibit IICII. Mr. Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "On January 5,2000, the Planning Board with six (6) members present, considered the above-referenced application and voted unanimously to send the following recommendations on this application. (1) To make a negative recommendation on the Variance from Section 4.5 (sign within comer lot setback) because there is no reasonable hardship, it is not consistent with the plan for the project at the time of approval, and because it derogates from the intent of the Zoning By-Law and creates a public safety danger. (2) To make a negative recommendation on the Variance from Section 4.7 .1.2 (freestanding sign exceeding area limitation) because the request doesn't meet the intent of the Zoning By-Law and is almost double the size allowed. (3) To make a negative recommendation on the Variance from Section 4.7 .1.1 (wall signs exceeding area limitation) because the applicant showed no reasonable hardship nor put forth any argument for the severe derogation form the intent of the Zoning By-Law; granting the Variance would create an aesthetic problem in the neighborhood; the request is not consistent with the goal of the signage by-law which tries to reduce signage pollution. " Minutes ofFebmaIy 1, 2000 r Page 2 of 5 Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case. Attorney Todd Rodman, with Mr. Irving Smith were representing Mandeville Signs. Mr. Rodman explained that they seeking a Variance from Section 4.5 (comer lot clearance) to allowing a freestanding sign within twenty-five (25) feet from point of intersection of Chancy Street and Giles Place; 4.7.1.1 to allow wall signs on the front and side of the building in excess of square footage allowed; and 4.7.1.2 to allow freestanding sign in excess of allowable square footage. These are the standard CVS sign packages and consistent with their signage. The hardship is that this is a deviation of the standard sign package and they need clear identification of their store. Mr. Rodman further stated that he does not represent CVS, he just represents the sign company. Mr. Rodman also stated that when these plans were drawn up they might not even be in violation of the 25 feet or even if there was a violation. Mr. Rodman was requested to get the plan specked out, and he requested a continuance, in writing, to have new plans drawn up. r The Board members were concerned with the line of sight concerning big trucks in the area, visibility issues, and a demonstrated hardship that does not derogate from the intent of the By-Law. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Vultaggio to grant a continuance to Mandeville Signs. Unanimously approved. The hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. The hearing on the application of North American Signs for a Variance from Section 4.7.2.1 of the Zoning By-Laws to permit a freestanding sign taller and larger than allowed, said sign to be located on the property of the Motel6/Red Rooflnn, 60 Forbes Blvd. in the I-I Zone began at 8:00 P.M. The application as labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "BII; and a Site Plan of Proposed Mansfield Inn in Mansfield, MA dated June 8, 1982 and revised on August 30, 1982 and prepared by Norwood Engineering Co., Inc., Civil Engineers, 1410 Providence Highway, Norwood, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C". Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members present, they voted unanimously to send a r Minutes ofFebmaIy 1,2000 r Page 3 of5 negative recommendation on the application. It was the opinion of the Board that the sign is grossly oversized in comparison to other signs in the area and the explanation of the unique characteristics of the lot did not show that conformance with the Zoning By-Law would be a hardship. Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case. r- Mr. Peter Hauser, Director of Site Enhancement introduced himself as the representative of North American Sign. Mr. Hauser explained that the Red Roof Inn is doing approximately $lM plus in upgrades on the Motel 6. The problems that the hotel is dealing with are (1) people are in an unfamiliar area; (2) people arrive at dusk; (3) there is very heavy tree cover; and (4) people are constantly complaining about getting lost. The lot is subject to special circumstances relating to shape and conditions specific to the land in question that do not impact the general area. The hotel property is located on Route 140 with access from Forbes Boulevard. Guests will arrive from Route 140. Visibility from Route 140 is significantly impaired by extensive tree growth on the existing seasonal wetland on the property. The wetland combined with the unique lot configuration combine to create circumstances specific to this property. Also, the proposed sign will ensure that motorists find their way safely. Mr. Hauser presented color photos in a booklet showing exactly what the sign would look like and where the sign would be located. A crane was brought into the area with a target hung on it to show the exact location. The sign would be approximately 108' high with an 11'- 6" by 18' -10" sign hung on the top. At 1 08' no trees would have to be cut down. The Board informed Mr. Hauser that 15 feet in height is what is allowed, not 1 08 feet. and he has to be realistic in his request. Dave Hammond stated that the airport is only 2 miles from this location and is angry that the applicant seems to be holding the trees hostage. The applicant requested a continuance, in writing. A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller to continue this hearing until new information can be obtained. The hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. r-. The hearing on the application of Maria Cabral for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Laws to allow for a garage addition with less than the required sideyard setback, said existing house located at 33 Warren Avenue in the R-3 Zone began at 8:30 P.M. Minutes of February 1, 2000 r Page 4 of5 The application as labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan 33 Warren Avenue dated January 6, 2000 and prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C". Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members present, they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation because there is no hardship demonstrated and the applicant has owned the property for less than one year. Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present her case. Ms. Cabral explained that she purchased the house almost one year ago and would like to add a 12' x 24' x 15.5' garage to her home for protection of her car since another car was vandalized in the neighborhood. Also, when the whether is bad she leaves her car at home. r All abutters, Carline Bielan, 32 Warren Ave., Antonio DePalma, 12 Warren Ave., Kris Behn, 53 Jennifer Hume, 59 Warren Ave., were in support of the applicant. The hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. The issue of Mr. Matoian was discussed by the Board. Mr. Flynn explained that at our last meeting Mr. Matoian was denied a variance for the addition to his house. After the meeting Mr. Matoian called Mr. Flynn and explained that he omitted the fact that his daughter was handicapped and that was why the addition had only been for the first floor. Mr. Matoian then informed a reporter, Rich Foster, at the Sun Chronicle, and an article was published regarding his denial and his handicapped daughter. The Board discussed that the matter can be reconsidered as informed by Town Counsel. Mrs. Garber-Miller stated that nothing alerted the Board to this matter and she specifically remembers Mr. Flynn asking the applicant why he could not build up his addition and the applicant stated that it was for aesthetic reasons only. Mr. Vultaggio stated that the Board should not have the burden and weight of this decision. The Board voted that the Decision stands as denied (Flynn, Vultaggio, Devine, Garber-Miller). ~-\ Minutes ofFebruaIy 1, 2000 (' Page 5 of5 A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller to deny a variance to Ms. Cabral. Unanimously denied. (Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Flynn, Devine, Butler). No hardship. r r--