HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_12032031_201402200909Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
December 3, 2013
The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:30 pm. Present at the hearing
were the following members: Kevin Mackie, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk; David Luca; James Rathbun;
Associate Member John McKenna; Associate Member Darlene Pruitt.
1. Meeting opened at 7:30 pm.
2. Dennis Tague, 2 Short Street, Map 34, Parcel 357
The application is for a Variance from Section 3.8.1 of the Zoning By -law to allow a detached accessory building (an
existing in- ground swimming pool) to be less than 10 (ten) feet from the principal building at 2 Short Street (Assessor's
Map 34, Parcel 357) in the Residential 1 (R1) Zone.
The following documents were submitted: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on October 16,
2013; a copy of the public hearing notice; Planning Board letter dated November 7, 2013; "Certified Plot Plan of Land in
Mansfield, MA ", dated September 10, 2013, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., and stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski; request to
continue the public hearing to December 3, 2013, signed by Mr. Dennis Tague.
Mr. Mackie appointed Associate Member Darlene Pruitt a voting member for this hearing.
Homeowner Mr. Tague explained that when he contracted to have the pool installed, the contractor was given a copy of
the certified plot plan Mr. Tague received when he purchased the house. Mr. Tague said when the house was
constructed in 1999, the attached deck was included but was not shown on the plan. He said the contractor measured
the distance from the house, not from the deck, placing the pool 16 feet from the house; all other setbacks were met.
Mr. Tague stated all the work has been done, the deck does not interfere with the pool and the walkway around the pool
does not cause any restrictions. He said he does not want to remove the deck but understands it does not comply with
the Zoning By -law.
Mr. Mackie was concerned about access to the house if there was an emergency. Mr. Tague said there is access from the
deck stairway as well as from the back of the house through the basement door.
Mr. Luca asked when the house and deck were built. Mr. Tague said he purchased the house with the deck in 1999, while
it was under construction.
Ms. Garber - Miller asked if Mr. Tague or the contractor submitted the building permit application for the pool. Mr. Tague
said the pool contractor was responsible for all the necessary permits; Mr. Tague provided the certified plot plan. She
said she does not understand how the certified plot plan, signed by an engineer, did not show the deck.
Mr. Mackie asked if Mr. Tague was aware the deck would be considered part of the structure. Mr. Tague said at the time
the pool was built he did not know that. When the building permit was submitted, the plan showed a 16 -foot clearance
from the house, not the deck. Mr. Tague said he did not see the building application but now understands there were
setback requirements. Ms. Garber - Miller asked if the contract with the pool installer specifies who is responsible for
submitting all the documents and permits. Mr. Tague said it was a verbal agreement that the contractor would obtain
any permits necessary.
As part of the Occupancy Permit, Mr. Rathbun said when a final inspection was done for the house, the deck would have
been inspected to make sure it was constructed properly. He asked how the deck could have been inspected if it was not
shown on the plot plan.
Mr. Mackie asked if an alternative would be to reduce the width of the deck to five feet. Mr. Tague said the width of the
deck could be reduced with the stairs left intact, but all the landscaping, walkways and walls have been designed around
the deck.
Ms. Garber - Miller said she was concerned there was only three feet from the edge of the pool and the overhang of the
deck.
Mr. Tague said the work has been completed and the necessary inspections were done during the pool installation; the
zoning issue was discovered during the final inspection.
Mr. Rathbun pointed out the customer is responsible for the certified plot plan.
Mr. Tague said the plan shows the house is 16 feet from the pool; Mr. Mackie noted the plan shows a measurement of 15
feet from the house to the pool.
Ms. Garber - Miller said the contractor added the pool and measurements to the plan but not the deck. Mr. Tague said
because the contractor has worked in other towns where the setback is 10 feet from the house, he measured from the
house, not the deck. He added it would be a hardship if the deck has to be removed. Ms. Garber - Miller said regardless of
what other towns do, it would be the contractor's job and the applicant's responsibility as well, to find out the zoning
requirements before any work was done.
Hearing ended at 7:55 pm.
Ms. Garber - Miller made a motion grant the Variance from Section 3.8.1 of the Zoning By -law to allow a detached
accessory structure (an existing in- ground swimming pool) to be less than 10 (ten) feet from the principal building at 2
Short Street as shown on the plan "Certified Plot Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA ", dated September 10, 2013, prepared by
RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion.
Discussion
Mr. Rathbun agreed the contractor should know the zoning requirements for the town where he is working, regardless of
other towns' requirements. He said the setback requirements are included on the pool application.
Mr. Luca said the size and shape of the lot do not present a hardship in terms of the Zoning By -law; the lot is rectangular
and there are no topography issues. He noted the deck has been there since 1999 but the pool was installed less than a
year ago. A portion of the deck could be removed, leaving the stairway in place.
Mr. Mackie noted that if the applicant had requested a Variance before the work was done, the board would have asked
that the pool be moved to comply with the setbacks.
Mr. Luca said the impact is not de minimis; the pool is not just a foot off, it is 70% off.
Ms. Garber - Miller said there is a reasonable solution, there is other usable space. Mr. Mackie agreed there is a remedy to
this situation.
Motion failed 0 -5 -0.
3. Old Business:
4. New Business:
5. Adjournment:
Mr. Luca made a motion to adjourn at 8:10 pm. Mr. Rathbun seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Next meeting will be January 21, 2014 at 7:30 pm.
Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk Date