Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_02051991y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES � � February 5, 1991,r ' , 'y��'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 Wojtkiewicz, Chairman; Mary - Lou Cotton, Clerk; Dr. Stanley Sohn; Eric Butler; Karl Clemmey; and Peter DeTrolio, Associate Member. The hearing on the application of William Morton for an Appeal from the Decision of the Inspector of Buildings, in his letter of November 21, 1990, regarding the Mansfield Fish and Game Club's right to operate a rifle range on East Street in the R -1 Zone, began at 7:45 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and a series of correspondence as Exhibit "C." Mrs. Cotton stepped down from this hearing because she is a member of the Fish and Game Club. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed as a voting member in her place. Dr. Sohn, appointed as acting clerk, read the Planning Board's letter into the record. With six members present, they voted unanimously not to send a recommendation on this application. Mr. Wojtkiewicz read the November,21st letter from the Building Inspector to Mr. Morton into the record. He also reviewed the results of Mr. Morton's previous appeals hearing in October, in which the decision of the Building Inspector was upheld. Grounds from Mr. Morton's present application were read into the record. Mr. Morton contends that the rifle range operated by the Fish and Game Club is an improper use of the land in the R -1 zone. Because the applicant had recently been before the Board, Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Town Counsel Bob Mangiaratti, who was present, to give his opinion as to the legitimacy of this application. Mr. Mangiaratti's opinion was that the applicant's proper recourse after his last appeal was denied was to bring the issue to Superior Court. His present application should be heard only if he believes something has changed since his last hearing. Mr. Morton felt that the focus of his letter triggering the last hearing was too narrow to allow him to enter information relating to the use of the land. He feels false and misleading information was systematically presented to the Board by the Fish and Game Club in hearings since 1986. He claims that the rifle range was constructed on the property without proper permits and without the Zoning Board's approval. Minutes of February 5, 1991 Page 2 of 6 There was some discussion regarding the definition of a rifle range. Mr. Cook, the Building Inspector, gave a history of the property. Mr. Mangiaratti pointed out that the important date for the Board to remember is 1953, when zoning laws were first instituted. If shooting on the property pre -dates zoning, then the rifle range would be seen as a pre- existing, non - conforming use. The Zoning Board does not have to draw a distinction between so- called random target shooting and shooting at a rifle range. Mike Mallette, president of the club, submitted a collection of documents relating to the club's operations /renovations over the years. Greg Cauldwell, another club member, felt that the use of the property has been well established for years. The hearing closed at 8:45 PM. The decision on the application of Norman Vickery for a determination /finding was postponed from the January 15th hearing and was discussed tonight. Mr. Mangiaratti read a letter from William Vernon, Mr. Vickery's attorney, which gave an assessment of the Zoning Board of Appeals' duties in regards to this application. He agreed with Mr. Vernon that the issue before the Board is to determine if the proposed use of the property is substantially more detrimental than the pre- existing, non - conforming use. The issue of multiple businesses operating from the property is not as important as the use and its impact on the neighborhood. And unlike a variance application, restrictions and /or conditions may not be applied to a positive finding; the Board's determination can only spell out what was understood to be the proposed use. And since the determination/ finding is not registered in the deed, as a variance would be, the burden of policing the operations would fall on the Building Inspector. Board members discussed a letter sent by the Police Chief requesting the department be allowed to use the Mansfield Fish and Game Club's rifle range for target practice after hours in order to train officers on new assault weapons. It was decided that the Police Chief should contact the Building Inspector to determine if his proposal is a change in use. If so, he will need to come to the Zoning Board for a determination/ finding. Debra will send a letter to Chief Earls regarding the above. The hearing on the application of Thomas J. Cassidy for a variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 and Section 4.5 of the Zoning By -Law to build an addition to an existing dwelling at 86 Essex Street with less than the required side /front yard setback on a corner lot in the R -1 zone began at 9:05 PM. Minutes of February 5, 1991 Page 3 of 6 The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", a plan of land dated 9/25/90 and prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Assoc. of Mansfield as Exhibit "C", and an architectural rendering of the proposed addition as Exhibit "D ". Mr. Wojtkiewicz explained to the applicants the conditions required for the granting of a variance. Mrs. Cotton read the Planning Board's letter into the record. With six members present, they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this application. Mr. Cassidy presented his case to the Board. He and his wife bought their house in 1969 and could have built the addition then, under the old by -laws, and had been given permission by the Planning Board in 1988 to do so. -The property borders on a paper street. Mr. Clemmey cited section 4.1.6 as a reason why he believes the Cassidys do not need a variance. Mr. Wojtkiewicz pointed out, however, that because of the paper street, the Cassidys have to conform to the zoning requirements for corner lots. Mr. Cassidy felt that his hardship was a result of the change in the by -laws. The hearing closed at 9:25 PM. The hearing on the application of Mansfield Corporate Center Realty Trust of Newton, MA for a variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.2, Section 1.5.17a and Section 4.4.4.13 of the Zoning By -Law to construct an addition to an existing building at 9 and 19 Hampshire Street in the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Center with less than the required frontage, lot width, side yard setback, and parking area screening and setback in the I -1 zone began at 9:30 PM. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and a series of plans dated January 4, 1991 and prepared by Beals and Thomas, Inc. of Westboro, MA as Exhibit "C". Mrs. Cotton read the Planning Board's.letter into the record. With six members present, they voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed a voting member in place of Mr. Butler for this hearing. Mr. Wojtkiewicz read the grounds from the application. Due to changes in the by -laws since the applicants purchased the land and obtained approval for a subdivision plan, variances are now required to construct the addition. Mr. Reilly and Mr. Fishman, representing the applicants, showed detailed maps and plans of the proposed addition. The proposed structure would be able to conform to zoning if it were not Minutes of February 5, 1991 Page 4 of 6 for the walkway they intend to have linking the two buildings. Dr. Sohn asked questions relating to traffic patterns and parking. Mr. Reilly suggested that changes could be made in the traffic -flow design to ease congestion at intersections. Mr. Butler asked if they had considered combining the two lots. Mr. Reilly responded that getting the financing at that point would be difficult. Mr. Madan, Chairman of the Planning Board, was present to give his Board's position. He feels the applicants were caught between zoning changes. The intent of the new frontage requirement was not to prevent new construction, but rather to limit small parcels being created in the industrial park. The hearing closed at 10:00 PM. The hearing on the application of Kent and Karen Butler for a variance from Section 5.7.2.2 of the Zoning By -Law to allow a pre- existing structure with less than the required minimum setback in a proposed residential compound at 162 Jewell Street in the R -1 zone began at 10:00. The application was labeled Exhibit "A ", newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B ", and a plan of land dated October'10, 1990, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Assoc. of Mansfield as Exhibit "C ". Mrs. Cotton read the Planning Board's letter into the record. With six members present, they voted unanimously not to send a recommendation on this application because they are presently in the public hearing stage for the proposed residential compound. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed as a voting member in place of Mr. Butler for this hearing. Mr. Wojtkiewicz read the grounds from the application into the record and explained to the applicants the grounds under which a variance may be granted. Mr. Trowbridge, representing the Butlers, stated that the by -laws made no provisions for existing structures when considering residential compounds. Everything the Planning Board has asked for has been incorporated into the plans; this existing house is the only problem. Because the residential compound requires a special permit, Town Counsel has advised that grandfathered uses are forfeited. There were no abutters present. The hearing closed at 10:10 PM. Mr. Trowbridge submitted a letter to the Board from Kenneth Smith, who was before the Board at its January 15th meeting. Mr. Smith requested that his application be withdrawn without prejudice. Minutes of February 5, 1991 Page 5 of 6 A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Dr. Sohn to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector in the case of William Morton. Several members felt that a pre- existing, non - conforming use had been established on this property. Mr. Clemmey voiced concern about the funds generated by the removal of gravel from the property. Dr. Sohn, Mr. Wojtkiewicz, Mr. Butler and Mr. DeTrolio voted to uphold the Building Inspector's decision. Mr. Clemmey voted to overturn. Decision is upheld. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Thomas Cassidy to build an addition at 86 Essex Street with a side /front yard setback of 15.5 feet ( + / -) in the R -1 zone. Unanimously granted. A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr.° Clemmey to grant variances to Mansfield Corporate Center Realty Trust to construct an addition to an existing building at 9 and 19 Hampshire Street with a frontage of 50 feet ( + / -) for each of Lots 2 and 3 or 100 feet ( + / -) for a consolidated lot comprising lots 2 and 3; less than the required lot width of lots 2 and 3, or a consolidated lot comprising lots 2 and 3; no side yard setback between the buildings; and no screening /setback between buildings. Unanimously granted. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to grant a variance to Kent and Karen Butler to allow an existing structure at 162 Jewell Street with a side yard setback of 22 feet ( + / -) and a front yard setback of 22 feet ( + / -) in the R -1 zone. Unanimously granted with Mr. DeTrolio voting for Mr. Butler. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey that the use proposed by Mr. Vickery for a business at \515 So. Main Street is consistent with the pre - existing, non - conforming use, as presented. Dr. Sohn and Mr. Butler did not agree that construction equipment can be equated with automobiles. Mr. Butler was also concerned that it might not be possible to draft a determination /finding to be specific enough to limit the activity proposed for the property. Mr. DeTrolio pointed out that if the Board does not rule in Mr. Vickery's favor at this juncture, he could reapply for a variance or special permit. This gives Board members the option of placing restrictions on a variance. Motion not seconded. A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mr. Butler to make a negative finding for the use of construction equipment on the property based on the notion that such a use would be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. ( Dr. Sohn, Mr. Butler, Mr. DeTrolio and Mr. Wojtkiewicz voted to make a negative determination/ finding. Mr. Clemmey Minutes of February 5, 1991 Page 6 of 6 wishes to go on record as opposing such a finding because he believes the Board could find a way to let Mr. Vickery use the property as requested, with stipulations. A negative determination /finding is made. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM. Next meeting is February 19, 1991. Respectfully submitted, Mary -Lou Cotton Clerk