HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_07091991ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES 91 SEP - 5 AN 11: 40
July 9, 1991
Tq
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; Karl Clemmey; Peter
DeTrolio, Jr. and Richard Secher, Associate Members.
The hearing on the application of John T. Mahoney III of
Norfolk on an Appeal from the Decision of the Inspector of
Buildings, in his letter of March 7, 1991, denying a
building permit for construction of a duplex on Keefe Street
(Assessor's Map 22, Lot 227) in the R -1 Zone, was continued
from June 4 and began at 7:45 PM.
All exhibits were entered into the public record at the June
4th hearing. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed a voting member in
place of Mr. Butler. Mrs. Cotton read the Planning Board's
recommendation into the record. With five members present,
they voted three in favor and two opposed to recommend that
the Building Inspector's decision be upheld. Also read was
the Building Inspector's letter to Mr. Mahoney, denying the
building permit.
Attorney Edward Valanzola was present to represent Mr.
Mahoney. He distributed copies of MGL Sec. 41 81L, defining
"public way," and claimed that Keefe Street is a public
thoroughfare even if not an accepted street. Also submitted
was a letter from the Mansfield Engineering Dept. stating
that Keefe Street is plowed and maintained by the town's
department of public works. He further maintained that the
precedent for duplexes in the area has already been
established, as there are seven in the neighborhood. Mr.
Mahoney has had two plans, one of them a "Form A," endorsed
by the Planning Board, which indicate adequate frontage and
access.
Mr. Cook explained that the Form A plan from 1988 shows
Keefe Street as only 150 feet long and the property in
question with only 90 feet of frontage. Mr. Valanzola
responded that that particular plan was designed to secure
the use of the property for a two - family unit and that
acceptance of this plan did not extinguish the existence of
the remainder of Keefe Street.
Mr. Mark Antine, representing several abutters, submitted
the names and addresses of his clients and pictures of Keefe
Street, showing it to be unpaved and dense with vegetation.
He claims that Keefe Street has never been considered a
Minutes of July 9, 1991
Page 2 of 6
public way and that it was only used by the previous owner,
whose house has since been demolished.
Mr. Santucci, an abutter, stated that there are only four
duplexes in the neighborhood and told board members that
when a fire once occurred at this location, the fire truck
could not navigate the turn and had to remain on Charles
Street.
Mr. Antine pointed out that the abutters are not "out to
get" Mr. Mahoney. There are several boards in town,
including this one, that have found problems with Mr.
Mahoney's various projects over the years.
Mr. Valanzola argued that a public thoroughfare does not
have to be a public way and that, if we go only by pictures
of properties, what is the use for guidelines and by -laws?
The hearing closed at 8:40.
The hearing on the application of Stanley A. Sohn for a
variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.2 of the Zoning By -law
to subdivide a lot at 619 -621 East Street, creating two
separate lots, lot 2 having less than the required minimum
frontage and lot width in the B -3. Zone, began at 8:45 PM.
( The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B"; and a plan of land dated May
22, 1991, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Assoc. of
Mansfield, MA as Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with
seven members present, voted five in favor and two opposed
to send a negative recommendation on this application.
Dr. Sohn stepped down from this hearing, as he is the
applicant. Mr. Secher and Mr. DeTrolio were appointed as
voting members for this hearing. Mrs. Cotton read the
grounds for variance from the application. They included
the irregular shape of the parcel which has created drainage
and utility difficulties, the supposition that one lot with
two uses would be difficult to sell or refinance, and that
there would be no derogation from the by -law since the
request is for redivision of two already separate lots.
Mr. Gary Lilienthal, attorney for Dr. Sohn, reviewed the
reasons given on the application and stressed the fact that
a variance is requested for dimensions only, not for use.
There will be no change in access to the property or in
traffic patterns. The only change would be in the method of
ownership. He pointed out that in the current financial
climate, banks would only refinance this property at a much
higher, commercial rate, even though the Sohns also reside
1 on the property.
Minutes of duly 9, 1991
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Clemmey asked for clarification of the division of the
lots. Stephen Nolan, an abutter, asked if any type of
business could operate on the property if a variance were
granted. Mr. Wojtkiewicz answered that no, the variance
would not influence or alter the use of the property. Peter
DeGirolamo, another abutter, asked why, if the property was
purchased in its present state, could the applicant be
claiming a hardship on the land? Mr. Lilienthal expressed
concern that the Planning Board's letter did not clearly
outline the nature of the conflict they perceive between the
special permit issued to the kennel operating on the
property and this present request for a redivision of the
lots. The hearing closed at 9:05.
The hearing on the application of Winifred and Michael
Masino of Plainville for a variance from section 4 Schedule
4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to complete construction of a
single - family structure at 49 Fruit Street with less than
the required minimum lot area, frontage and front and side
yard setbacks in the R -1 Zone began at 9:10 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a plan of land dated September
7, 1969, prepared by George Poor of Mansfield, MA as Exhibit
( "C"; and the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision and
transcript from the 12/25/69 hearing as Exhibit "D." The
Planning Board, with seven members present, voted
unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this
application. Mr. Secher was appointed a voting member for
this hearing.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz explained that the Masinos obtained a
variance in 1969 but failed to record it at the Registry of
Deeds. Mr. Masino told the board that, due to a minor legal
technicality, the property was tied up in land court for
eight years and that by the time it was settled, zoning laws
had changed. The foundation for a single - family home was
poured in 1969 and he later paid to bring in town sewer, but
the house was never built. When asked if he intended to
live in the proposed home, he responded that he did not.
There were several abutters present, curious about the
Masinos' intentions for the property and concerned about the
proximity of another home to their property lines. It was
also pointed out that this property is located in the R -2
zone, not the R -1 zone, and therefore meets the side yard
setback requirement. Mr. Secher asked to see a rendering of
the plans for the proposed house. Mr. Masino agreed to
leave a copy with the Town Clerk. The hearing closed at
9:25.
Minutes of July 9, 1991
Page 4 of 6
The hearing on the application of John C. Hurley of No.
Easton for a variance from Section 3.10.4 of the Zoning By-
Law to construct and attach a new building to an existing
structure at 274 Fruit Street, an expansion of a non-
conforming use, in the R -2 Zone began at 9:30 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B'!; a plan of land dated August 8,
1990, prepared by Rim Engineering of Mansfield, MA as
Exhibit "C "; and a rendering of the proposed addition as
Exhibit "D." The Planning Board, with seven members
present, voted six in favor and one opposed to send a
negative recommendation on this application. Mr. DeTrolio
was appointed a voting member for this hearing.
Mr. Hurley gave a history of the property. He already
sought and obtained a variance for this exact proposal and
neglected to have it recorded. He wishes to build the
addition in order to store indoors some equipment that is
now outdoors. He feels he has always maintained the
residential look of the neighborhood and wishes to keep
doing so. There will be no expansion of his business.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz commended Mr. Hurley on the job he does of
( maintaining his property. Dr. Sohn asked if the airport
would be allowed to use the new building. They would not.
The hearing closed at 9:40.
The hearing on the application of Marguerite Pellegrini for
a variance from Section 3.8.1.a of the Zoning By -Law to
convert an existing garage to a utility shed, located at 88
Angell Street, with less than the required minimum sideline
setback in the R -3 Zone began at 9:40 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a plan of land dated May
29, 1984, prepared by David E. Grant of Mansfield, MA as
Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with seven members
present, voted five in favor and two opposed to send a
negative recommendation on this application. Mr. Secher was
appointed a voting member for this hearing.
Mr. Charles Mulcahy, attorney for the Pelligrinis, explained
that because of a court decision, the existing garage
encroached on the Verzola property at 92 Angell Street and
was subsequently severed at the property line. He
maintained that a utility shed would constitute a lesser use
of the property than the garage did.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked how the garage is presently being
supported. Mr. Tony Pellegrini, Mrs. Pellegrini's son,
Minutes of July 9, 1991
Page 5 of 6
stated that 3x4 -foot beams support the structure. Mr.
Wojtkiewicz then asked if it wouldn't be easier to knock
down the garage and build something else. Mr. Pellegrini
responded that they wanted to use the concrete pad that is
already there.
Mrs. Catherine Verzola, a direct abutter at 92 Angell
Street, agreed that the Pellegrinis would be allowed to
cross the property line to maintain the new structure when
necessary. The hearing closed at 9:50.
Mr. Clemmey made a motion to overturn the Building
Inspector's decision, thereby allowing Mr. Mahoney to
construct a duplex on Keefe Street. Dr. Sohn wished to
table the issue in order to obtain an opinion from town
counsel. If Keefe Street is truly a public thoroughfare,
then he believes a permit should be issued. Mrs. Cotton
wished for clarification on just how much frontage exists
and does not wish to issue conditional approval if frontage
is inadequate. Mr. Clemmey's motion was not seconded.
A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mr. Clemmey to
refer the case to town counsel for an opinion as to whether
Keefe Street is a legal public thoroughfare. Unanimously
( agreed. A letter agreeing to a postponement of this
decision was drafted by Atty. Valanzola and signed by the
applicant and board members. Debra will register it with
the Town Clerk and send a copy to the abutters' attorney,
Mark Antine.
A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr. Secher
to grant a variance to Dr. Sohn. Mr. DeTrolio wished for
clarification on how this variance might affect the kennel's
special permit. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that the case was
based on the prospect of refinancing the property. Mrs.
Cotton pointed out that there are similar properties in the
neighborhood. Mr. Clemmey felt that no case for hardship
had been made and wished to discuss issues of public safety,
as mentioned in the Planning Board's letter. Mr. Secher did
not understand how the reconfiguring of lots would affect
public safety in the form of changed traffic patterns. Mr.
Clemmey pointed out that both businesses may grow and
thereby increase traffic. He also felt that because a
special permit had been issued for the kennel, subdividing
the lot would constitute a greater use of the property. Mr.
Wojtkiewicz felt that although the proposal does derogate
from the intent of the by -law with one lot having frontage
of 20 feet, the owner is unable to gain access to
refinancing for the residential portion of the property as
it is presently structured. He therefore felt unable to
vote. Dr. Sohn interrupted the discussion to clarify the