Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 6/5/1990ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 93 SEP -S P11 !k: 03 MINUTES HAHS, {f..L D JUNE 5, 1990 KASSACHUi The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:45 PM. Present at the hearing were the following members: George H. Wojtkiewicz, Chairman; Edward Valanzola, Clerk; Dr. Stanley Sohn; Mary -Lou Cotton; Eric Butler; and Peter DeTrolio, Associate Member. The hearing for Robert Variances from Section from Section 5.1.1a of addition to an existini less than the required I -2 Zone and expansion District began at 7:50 L. Hirschhorn of Springfield, MA for 4 Schedule 4.2.2 and a Special Permit the Zoning By -Law to construct an I building at 60 Maple Street with floor -area ratio and side yard in the in the Water Supply Protection PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and Plan of Land dated February 20, 1990, prepared by Rim Engineering of Mansfield, as Exhibit "C." Chairman Wojtkiewicz explained the hearing's procedure, as there were many interested parties in attendance. The applicant was not present; he was represented by the project's engineer, Ralph Maloon; architect, Ben Schenkelberg; and Vice President of Corofab, Ken Berkowitz. The Planning Board, with four members, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. However, the Board strongly urges the applicant to reapply for the portion of his plan that calls for a variance from the Special Permit provision. Ralph Maloon presented the history of the site. The current owners purchased the two existing businesses that are located on the property with the intentions of one day connecting the buildings. At present, they are shuttling goods and raw materials between buildings by truck. The proposed structure would link the two buildings. The Board asked many questions regarding the logistics of transporting materials between the buildings. Issues also addressed were: potential increase in traffic, the need for more parking, and the lack of adequate open space. The Board asked if there were another way to link the buildings if the only issue is access. Mr. Berkowitz_ replied that the proposed addition is also to be used for storage. The Board also asked what hardship the applicant was under in regards to this proposed addition. Mr. Berkowitz Minutes of June 5, 1990 Page 2 of 6 responded that the businesses had been purchased just before the Zoning By -Laws changed, when the maximum floor -area ratio was 60% instead of the 25% it is today. The plan had always been to link the two buildings because shuttling goods between them is cumbersome and inconvenient and thereby, expensive. If they had known that the Zoning By- Laws were changing, not in their favor, they would not have purchased the businesses. Debate ensued between the applicant's representatives, Board members and members of the audience regarding the burden of responsibility for determining the status of the By -Laws. There were many abutters present. Joan Russell, a direct abutter, informed the Board that there is a concrete slab on her property that is currently being used as a loading dock. She also told the Board that she had seen three trucks on her property that day, that there is a 50 -car parking lot situated on her property line and that in transporting their goods, the businesses routinely trespass onto her property. Two representatives from the neighborhood also presented their concerns and voiced their negative recommendations for the proposal. Their basic concerns were increased traffic, especially truck traffic, and the possibility that the future sale of the businesses could drastically alter the property's use. The hearing closed at 9:00 PM. The hearing for Gary Bryant of Moosup, CT for Variances from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 and Section 1.5.17a of the Zoning By -Law to construct a single - family dwelling at 136 Old Elm Street with less than the required frontage and lot width in the R1 Zone began at 9:05 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and Plan of Land dated March 14, 1990, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge of Mansfield, as Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with four members, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Ralph Maloon, speaking for Mr. Bryant, gave a history of the property. After buying the property in 1988, Mr. Bryant discovered that there had been a mathematical error made in 1962 when a plot plan for the land had been accepted by the Registry of Deeds. It appears that a series of successive lots were measured incorrectly, thereby making each lot a little smaller than stated on their plot plans. This, combined with the fact that much of Mr. Bryant's property is now considered wetlands, has created a non - conforming lot. There were two abutters present, Sandra Franey and Lawrence Costa, who stated that they have no objections to Mr. Minutes of 6/5/90 Page 3 of 6 Bryant's proposed house. Mr. Costa also pointed out that a previous owner had kept horses, who must have trodden down the soil, since the property had not previously appeared as wetland. The hearing closed at 9:25. The hearing for John Todesco for Variances from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to construct additions to convert an existing non - conforming dwelling at 42 Branch Street to a two- family dwelling with less than the required frontage, side yard and square feet per unit in the R3 Zone began at 9:27 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and Plan of Land dated April 9, 1990, prepared by David E. Grant of Mansfield, as Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with four members, voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation for this application. Chairman Wojtkiewicz read the grounds into the record. The applicant believes that the neighborhood would be better served by converting the house to a two - family. Mr. Todesco stated that the R3 Zone permits two- family dwellings and that five multi - family dwellings currently exist within 500 feet of his property. He feels that the conversion would not drastically alter the neighborhood and that since he has owned the property, he has made several upgrading alterations. His only proposed addition would be an outside staircase. He wishes to convert this property in order to help his daughter and her fiance purchase it as a starter home. There are currently three people living in the house, Mr. Todesco's two daughters and a roommate. The applicant's daughter and future son -in -law spoke in support of the application. They felt that there has been more "roommate traffic" with the house as a single - family than there would be if two families lived in the house. Also, they expect to be able to do household repairs and upkeep themselves, even if they should sell the house at some future date. The Board asked if there were any two- families directly abutting this property. There are not. One abutter, Doris Ennis, was present. She had been concerned that the additions planned would be more extensive, but since only an outside stairway is planned, she has no objections to the proposal. The hearing closed at 9:40 PM. The hearing for Fred J. and Robert H. Barrows for a Variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to construct a single - family dwelling at 440 East Street with Minutes of 6/5/90 Page 4 of 6 less than the required frontage in the R2 Zone began at 9:43 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and Plan of Land dated August 15, 1988 and revised April 30, 1990, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge of Mansfield, as Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with four members, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Chairman Wojtkiewicz read the grounds into the record. The applicant's original lot was created before the current Zoning By -Laws were effective, divided by an old, private paper street. Since then, the paper street has apparently been abandoned by the Town, leaving the lot with twice the minimum lot size but less than the required frontage. Fred Barrows spoke for himself and his brother. The applicant came before the Zoning Board approximately two years ago but withdrew his application when the existence of the paper street became known. He has since had a lawyer investigate the status of the paper street. Mr. Valanzola read into the record a letter sent by Karen Bregnard, attorney for Mr. Fred Barrows to Max Volterra, counsel for the Town of Mansfield, regarding the paper street known as Church St. Extension. She did not receive a response to this letter. Mr. Barrows stated that one of his neighbors has agreed to sell him the few feet he would need to make his lot conform in the back, but that some of his other neighbors, who were present at the hearing, are extremely concerned about the possibility of their property becoming land- locked should the Town ever decide to act upon the paper street. There were a number of abutters present whose main concern was the effect the paper street would have on their property. There is also, in fact, another paper street in the neighborhood, which is of concern to them. The Board pointed out that, because of the paper street, he is really seeking variances on two separate lots: for square footage on one and for frontage on the other. Because the question of Church St. Extension's viability could not be determined at this hearing, it was decided that the hearing should be rescheduled in order to request an opinion from Town Counsel on the matter. In the meantime, the applicant should have his plot plan redrawn, showing only one lot. The hearing closed at 10:05. i The hearing for Mary Steele for a Variance from Section 4.1.5 of the Zoning By -Law to divide an existing building at Minutes of 6/5/90 Page 5 of 6 50 Crocker Street into 19 units with less than the required square feet of interior floor area in the B1 Zone began at 10:10 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and Land and Site Plans dated March 10, 1989, prepared by E. A. Pickard Associates of Providence, RI as Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with four members, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Grounds for variance were explained to the Board by Joseph Hannon, Mrs. Steele's attorney. The Board of Appeals had granted a variance in September, 1989 when the property in question was owned by the Town of Mansfield. After Mrs. Steele, the present owner, purchased the land from the Town, zoning laws were changed so that the apartment building she was constructing was now located in a business district where the proposed multi - family dwelling could be allowed only by Special Permit. The applicant sought and obtained a Special Permit from the Planning Board, which expressed in its decision the opinion that a variance from the intensity requirement as outlined in Section 4.1.5 of the Zoning By -Laws would be needed. The building is divided into 19 units with interior floor space ranging from 320 to 780 sq. ft. The average unit size is 606 sq. ft., the requirement being 600 sq. ft., calculated by dividing gross floor area of the building by 19. The applicant is now seeking a Variance from the square footage requirement. There were no abutters present. The hearing closed at 10:28 PM. A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to grant a variance to Stephen Reynolds, whose application had been tabled at the 5/15 meeting. The Board decided that the addition of a garage, with less than the required front in the R2 Zone, would not detract from the character of the neighborhood. Unanimously granted by Chairman Wojtkiewicz, Mr. DeTrolio, Mrs. Cotton and Dr. Sohn. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Dr. Sohn to grant two variances to Robert Hirschhorn. The discussion focused on the fact that the proposed addition is not very large and that a case could be made for hardship in that the businesses were bought just before zoning changes went into effect, greatly altering the floor -area ratio allowance. Mr. Valanzola felt that, because Mr. Hirschhorn owns a large corporation and is not just a private property owner, the i Minutes of 6/5/90 ( Page 6 of 6 onus was on him to investigate the status of zoning regulations regarding his prospective purchase of this property. Several members expressed the opinion that the abutters' properties will not be greatly affected by the proposed addition. Chairman Wojtkiewicz, Dr. Sohn, Mrs. Cotton and Mr. Butler voted to grant the variances for floor -area ratio and side yard requirements. Mr. Valanzola voted to deny. Variances granted. The applicant must reapply to the Planning Board regarding the issue of the Special Permit. 9 A motion was made by Mr. Valanzola and seconded by Dr. Sohn to grant variances to Gary Bryant to build a single - family dwelling at 136 Old Elm Street with less than the required frontage and lot width. Dr. Sohn wished to include the condition that only one single - family dwelling be allowed on the property and that the lot never be subdivided again. Unanimously granted with conditions. A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mr. Butler to deny the request for variance by John Todesco to convert an existing non- conforming dwelling into a two - family dwelling. The Board expressed concern that it would not be too many years before Mr. Todesco's daughter outgrew the house and became an absentee landlord. Also, if granted, this may pave the way for more two - family conversions in the neighborhood. Chairman Wojtkiewicz did not feel convinced that there was a hardship in this case and wished to inspect the property before making a decision. The case was tabled until 6/19, with Mr. Valanzola on record to deny the request. A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Dr. Sohn to grant a variance to Mary Steele to divide an existing building at 50 Crocker Street into 19 units with less than the required square feet of interior floor area in the B1 Zone. Unanimously granted. Decisions and bills were signed. The minutes from 5/15 and correspondence were tabled until 6/19 because of the late hour. The meeting adjourned at 11:00. Clerk ed,