HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 04/04/00
('
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
f"l ,..,....,
~. ! ...... f: r";
MINUTES
APRIL 4. 2000
-"'-.
~ j 1 :3
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; Olivier Kozlowski; and Dave Hammond, Associate Member.
The hearing on the application of Donald Vogel for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning
By-Laws to allow for an addition to an existing home which will result in less than the required
sideyard setback, said home to be located at 18 Ian Keats Drive in the R-I Zone began at 7:30
P.M.
The application as labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B";
and a Zoning Board of Appeals Lot 26 House #18 Ian Keats Drive dated January 18,2000 and
revised on February 3, 2000 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, 200 Chauncy
r Street, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "e". Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board
into the record. "With seven (7) members present, they voted six (6) in favor with one (1)
opposed to send a negative recommendation on the application. It is the opinion of the Board
that encroachment into the setback could be avoided by an addition to the back of the house,
rather than to the side."
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case.
Mr. and Mrs. Vogel presented the Board with a petition signed by their neighbors in support of
this variance application. Mr. Vogel stated that when they purchased their home they were
informed by the realtor that there was approximately 3/4 of an acre of land and the house was
situated on the property so as to allow an addition of a mud room and garage with a bedroom
over it, but unfortunately they relied on the realtor's professional advice. The feel the hardship is
the wetland in the rear (on the adjacent property) and the wetness of their yard; and the awkward
shape of their lot.
Marc Melker, 9 Ian Keats Drive, who lives right across the street stated the he has seen the plans,
they are fine and will add value to the property.
r
The hearing closed at 7:40 P.M.
Minutes of April 4, 2000
r Page 2 of3
A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Mr. and
Mrs. Vogel. (All in favor - Vultaggio, Butler, Kozlowski, Devine) (All opposed - Flynn) Motion
passes 4-1. Reasons: Property is wet in rear, irregular shape oflot, 70% of house in that area
have garages and mudrooms.
The hearing on the application of Mandeville Signs for a Variance per Sections 4.7. 1. 1 of the
Zoning By-Laws to allow for more than one wall sign per building and 6.2.2.(A), party aggrieved
by the decision of the Building Inspector, at 261 ehauncy Street in the B-3 Zone began at 7:45
P.M.
The application as labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B";
and a two-page plan, drawing no. 1-367A, dated 6/1/99 and revised on 7/21/99, 11/19/99,
2/2/00, and 2/7/00 prepared by Mandeville Signs, Inc., Lincoln, RI and labeled as Exhibit "C".
Mr. Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "On March 1, 2000, the
Planning Board with six (6) members present, considered the above-referenced application and
voted unanimously to support the interpretation of the Building Inspector with regard to the
application. "
r
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case.
Attorney Philip e. Lombardo, Jr., attorney for Mandeville Signs and CVS, Inc., introduced
himself and explained that he would like to clarify the application. CVS through its agent,
Mandeville Signs, originally applied for a variance for its freestanding sign as to location and sign
area; and wall signs exceeding area limitations. This hearing was continued. Subsequently CVS
learned that the Building Inspector takes the position that a building in a commercial district is
allowed only one wall sign. As a result, CVS applied for a variance to allow more than one wall
sign and, in the alternative, accompanied the variance request with an Appeal from the Building
Inspector's determination that only one such sign is allowed.
Mr. Lombardo withdraw in writing his last, continued variance request. A motion was made by
Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Flynn to approve the withdrawal, unanimously approved.
There already exists a wall sign on the ehauncy Street front of the building. They are allowed
one wall sign on the front of the building and they are requesting a second wall sign on the Giles
Road side. The reasons for the two wall signs are they are looking for visibility and in the
summer the signs will be blocked by trees and vegetation.
r
/
Minutes of April 4, 2000
(' Page 3 of3
Mr. Butler stated that the application does not match what the applicant is asking for. The Board
reviewed the ad and it does state exactly what the applicant is requesting.
The hearing closed at 8:30 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Butler to uphold the decision of the
Building Inspector. Motion carries 5-0 (Devine, Flynn, Butler, Vultaggio, Kozlowski)
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to grant the applicants request
to place a second wall sign on the wall which faces Giles Street. (In favor _ Butler, Kozlowski,
Vultaggio; opposed - Devine, Flynn) Reason: No hardship, it is reasonable if it is a hotel, but not
a drug store, there is no need to project an image.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Y/~ub{1re
r ~~
r