Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_10021990E,E IVIVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES go OCT 1 fti 8: U 1 All t� OCTOBER 2, 1990 it SCHU ET 1 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; Mary -Lou Cotton; Dr. Stanley Sohn; Eric Butler; and Peter DeTrolio and Richard Secher, Associate Members. The hearing on the application of Franklyn Allen for a variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 and Section 1.5.17a of the Zoning By -Law to convert a storage building at 795 (Rear) Ware Street to a single- family dwelling with less than the required lot frontage, front yard setback and lot width in the R1 Zone began at 7:45 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and plan of land dated July 3, 1990, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Assoc. of Mansfield, as Exhibit "C." Mrs. Cotton was appointed Acting Clerk, as Mr. Valanzola arrived late. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed a voting member ( for this hearing. Mrs. Cotton read the Planning Board's letter of recommendation into the record. With seven members present, they voted five in favor and two opposed to send a positive recommendation on this application. Mr. Wojtkiewicz explained the definition of hardship and the grounds necessary for obtaining a variance. Mr. Allen presented his case. The existing building that he wishes to convert was originally used for industrial purposes; the land it is on was previously zoned industrial and is now zoned residential. He has spoken with his abutters and they have no objections to his conversion of the property to a single - family dwelling. Board members asked questions regarding the previous industrial uses of the property, how the property had come to be subdivided and Mr. Allen's intentions for the proposed converted dwelling. Mr. Allen has not decided whether he would live in the house himself, rent or sell it. The hearing closed at 8:00. The hearing for Jerrold C. Wood of 223 Franklin Street for a variance from Sections 3.5.19 and 3.6.4 of the Zoning By -Law to operate a machine shop and an antique vehicle sales office at 347 Pratt Street in the R -2 Zone began at 8:00. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", the newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and a plan of land dated April 8, 1990, prepared by Michael P. Antonio, Registered Land Minutes of October 2, 1990 Page 2 of 6 l Surveyor of Stoughton, as Exhibit "C." Mr: Valanzola read the Planning Board's letter of recommendation into the record. With four members voting, they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this application. Chairman Wojtkiewicz read the grounds for variance from the application into the record. The applicant wishes to operate two business inside of the building and abandon the right to an auto repair business outside. Mr. Wood began his presentation by stating his surprise that the Planning Board had made a recommendation without his knowledge. Mr. Wojtkiewicz clarified the role that the Planning Board plays in regard to zoning applications. Mr. Wood presented his case, citing old by -laws which outlined "grandfathered uses" and "lesser uses." He feels that he has always complied with these bylaws, which were in effect either when he bought the property ten years ago or when variances for business uses were issued to previous owners of his property. He claims that he has always maintained an auto repair business because he did not want to lose the right to do so on the property. He feels that he is presenting the neighborhood with a compromise: he will abandon auto repair if he can operate two businesses indoors. Many abutters were present and several interrupted Mr. Wood's presentation to either disagree or provide anecdotal information. Board members asked many questions regarding the proposed businesses: would one of the business owners need to live in the house? would there be any activity carried on outside the building? would there be coming and going of vehicles? Mr. Wood seemed unsure of the answers to some of the questions. Dr. Sohn asked if Mr. Wood would be willing to install a fence so that his property would not be seen by neighbors. Mr. Wood agreed to install one. Jay Barrows of 370 Pratt Street presented the case for the numerous abutters in attendance. The neighborhood, he said, is totally against any increased activity by Mr. Wood. They feel that they have put up with too many years of non- residential activity from the sequential owners of Mr. Wood's property. The original variances on the property were supported by neighbors only because the people involved were their neighbors and the owners lived in the property. He cited several hazards which exist on Mr. Wood's property, including a swimming pool which is not surrounded by a fence. He also claims that there had never been an auto repair shop on the property, as Mr. Wood claims. Rather, ( one of the previous owners fixed his own equipment on the property; that activity was not done for profit. He Minutes of October 2, 1990 Page 3 of 6 expressed the neighborhood's concern that the property would never be cleaned up or fenced in, despite Mr. Wood's promises. The hearing closed at 8:45. The hearing on the application of Michele Galante of No. Easton for a variance from Sections 3.7.2 and 3.10.5 of the Zoning By -Law to convert an office to an apartment in an existing building at 14 So. Main Street, returning the building to a less restricted mixed business /residential use in the R -3 Zone began at 8:47 PM. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", the newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and a plan of land, dated Nov. 20, 1987, prepared by Paul N. Robinson, Assoc. of Millis, as Exhibit "C." Mr: Valanzola read the Planning Board's letter of recommendation into the record. With four members voting, they voted two in favor and two opposed to send a positive recommendation on the application. Mr. Wojtkiewicz established for everyone the location of the property. The unit proposed for conversion is in a building which presently houses a restaurant and three other apartments. Mr. Galante, the applicant's husband, gave a history of the property. The unit in question had been an apartment when they bought the building. When tenant problems arose and the Building Inspector became involved, they were told that a permit had never been issued for the unit to be an apartment. They then converted it to an office. 'Since business tenants moved out over a year ago, the space has gone unrented. They now want to convert it back into an apartment. Board members asked many questions regarding parking, what the conversion would consist of (no floor plans were submitted) , and conditions in the building overall. Three abutters from condominium units at 14 Webb Place were present and voiced many concerns about adding another apartment to an area which is already congested and where there have been problems with the present tenants. They cited as concerns the fact that they've had to call the police many times because of loud parties and trespassers, and problems with tenants' dogs barking and excrement being thrown onto their property. Mrs. Galante assured the abutters that she wanted to rent to quieter tenants and would try her best to do so. Mr. Galante stated that they could put up a fence, but that that wouldn't help with the noise. The hearing closed at 9:12. The hearing on the application of Peter DeGirolamo & Sons, Inc. for a variance from Sections 3.5.3 and 3.6.2 of the Zoning By -Law to allow an existing garage, offices, and Minutes of October 2, 1990 Page 4 of 6 equipment and material storage at 631 East Street in the R -1 Zone began at 9:15 PM. Dr. Sohn, who is an abutter to this property, excused himself from the hearing. Peter DeTrolio was appointed as a voting member in his place. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", the newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and a plan of land dated April 2, 1990, prepared by Rim Engineering of Mansfield, as Exhibit "C." Mr. Valanzola read the Planning Board's letter of recommendation into the record. With four members voting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Also read into the record was a letter from Wendy Willhauck of 601 East Street, stating her support of this application for variance with three conditions: that there be a buffer installed between the DeGirolamo property and abutting properties, that equipment and machinery not be started before 7 AM, and that crushing and stockpiling of asphalt not be allowed on the site. Mr. Wojtkiewicz read the grounds for variance from the application. The asphalt business which is currently being conducted from this property is in violation of the zoning by -laws for the R -1 Zone. Yet there is not another location within Mansfield where this type of business would be allowed. Only part of the property lies in the R -1 zone; the rest is in a business zone. If Mr. DeGirolamo were not allowed to conduct his business at this location, he feels that he would probably go out of business because of the expense involved in finding another piece of property of this size and suited for this purpose. Mr. DeGirolamo feels that his business does not derogate from the neighborhood because surrounding him are other businesses -- a kennel, dance studio, and shopping plaza across the street. His trucks leaving in the morning and returning in the late afternoon are far less disruptive, he believes, than the regular trucking traffic that exists on Rt. 106 (East Street). The Board asked many questions regarding the extent of activity on the property, location of rubble piles, types of equipment stored on property, proximity of the aforementioned to abutters' property and the feasibility of converting the office space into living space. Linda Sohn, an abutter to the property and owner of the kennel, gave her view of the situation. She first took issue with points made in the applicant's statement of grounds for variance regarding her kennels and what he termed a "noise nuisance." The kennels are legally there, I Minutes of October 2, 1990 Page 5 of 6 by special permit; his business is not. She is, however, supportive of the variance being granted with the conditions outlined in Ms. Willhauck's letter. If these conditions are not met, she is opposed to the variance. Mr. Karl Clemmey, a friend of Mr. DeGirolamo, spoke in favor of the variance. Mr. Steve Nolan of 625 East Street, owner of Cindy's Dance Studio, stated that he had no objections to the variance. Mr. Ben Flint of 832 East Street, a direct abutter, stated that he had no objections to the variance. Responding to Mrs. Sohn's request for conditions, Mr. DeGirolamo had the following comments: who should be responsible for erecting a buffer, he or the Sohns; his equipment is started up early in the morning because, in his business, the day starts at 7 AM at the site. With an hour or so drive, it is necessary to leave well before 7 AM. As for the rubble piles and crushing of asphalt, it is a situation now out of his hands; DEP is going to rule on his right to crush and /or store asphalt at the site. There was a discussion among Board members as to Dr. Sohn's right to speak as an abutter. It was decided that because he had removed himself from all decision - making capacities, his remarks could only be considered in his capacity as an abutter. Dr. Sohn gave his interpretation of the history of the property. When Mr. DeGirolamo bought the property, it was zoned agricultural and the activities now being performed there were not allowed. They are still not allowed in the zone and yet the business has grown over the years, becoming more of an intrusion on the quality of life of the surrounding properties. There is a black cloud from diesel engines that hangs over his property every morning from the start -up of machinery. Mr. Clemmey objected to Dr. Sohn's right to speak as an abutter. The hearing closed at 10:25. A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to grant a variance to Mr. Franklyn Allen to convert a storage building at 795 (Rear) Ware Street with frontage of 20 feet ( + / -), front yard setback of 26 feet (+ / -), and less than the required lot width with the restriction that only one single - family dwelling be built and that there be no future development of the property. Mrs. Cotton, Dr. Sohn, Mr. DeTrolio and Mr. Butler voted to grant. Mr. Wojtkiewicz voted to deny. Variance granted with a vote 4 -1. A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Dr. Sohn to deny the request for variance made by Mr. Wood to operate two businesses at 347 Pratt Street. Mrs. Cotton stated i that, in her opinion, the use of the property would be greater with two businesses even if they were conducted Minutes of October 2, 1990 Page 6 of 6 indoors. Also, it derogates from the intent of the by -law; the original variance was intended to phase out and return the property to residential use. The Board all agreed that the neighbors were against any increased use of the property. Unanimously denied. A motion was made by Mr. Valanzola and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to deny a variance to Michele Galante to convert an office to an apartment at 14 So. Main Street. Discussion focused on the lack of preparation and forethought for the proposed alteration, potential parking problems, proposed space is very small for an apartment, and abutters' complaints with level of traffic and noise generated by the present tenants in the building. Unanimously denied. The decision on the application of Peter DeGirolamo & Sons, Inc. is postponed until the next meeting to give Board members a chance to view the property. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be meeting with members of the Planning Board at 7:00 on October 16, 1990, prior to scheduled hearings. Bills were signed. Meeting adjourned at 10:45. Re ectfully submitted, Edward W. Valanzola Clerk