HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_08061991ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS' `:t, ' 4 i`«
MINUTES 91 SE° -5 A11,111: Lo
August 6, 1991
f
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; Eric Butler; Karl Clemmey; Peter
DeTrolio, Jr. and Richard Secher, Associate Members.
The hearing on the application of Eleanor McCarter for a
variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -law
to construct an addition to a single - family structure at 152
Dean Street (garage, family room, study and deck), an
expansion of a pre- existing, non - conforming structure in the
R -2 Zone, began at 7:50 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a plan of land dated June 24,
1991, prepared by Rim Engineering, Inc. of Mansfield, MA as
Exhibit "C"; and a hand -drawn rendering of the proposed
addition as Exhibit "D." The Planning Board, with six
members present, voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation on this application. Mr. DeTrolio was
appointed as a voting member in place of Dr. Sohn.
Mrs. McCarter presented her case, explaining to board
members that because her house was built over 100 years ago,
there were no zoning laws to dictate the location of the
house on the property. The proposed addition would be
positioned at the rear of the house so as to not make the
house any more non - conforming. The house will be put on
town sewer when the addition is built. Mrs. McCarter will
leave a copy of the "RDA" approval letter from the
Conservation Commission with the Town Clerk. The hearing
closed at 8:00.
The hearing on the application of John Bender for a variance
from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -law to
construct an addition (front porch) to an existing single -
family structure at 10 Canoe River Drive with less than the
required minimum front yard setback in the R -1 Zone, began
at 8:00 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a plan of land dated June 28,
1991, prepared by DMG Engineering Corp. of Middleboro, MA as
Exhibit "C"; and a rendering of the proposed addition as
Exhibit "D." The Planning Board, with six members present,
voted three in favor, two opposed, and one abstention to
l send a positive recommendation on this application. Mr.
Secher was appointed as a voting member for this hearing.
Minutes of August 6, 1991
Page 2 of 7
Mr. Bender wishes to add on a farmer's porch for his own
enjoyment as well as to keep his property in step with the
current market trends. The addition would bring him six
feet within the front yard setback requirement. Mr. Clemmey
asked about the location of the septic system, which is to
the rear of the house. The hearing closed at 8:07.
Mr. Clemmey wished to discuss the prospect of all board
members receiving copies of the minutes before the hearing
in order to review them. Mrs. Cotton, as clerk, asserted
that this was a good idea since board members could come
prepared to discuss them, thereby not taking up meeting time
by having them read aloud. Mr. Clemmey made a motion,
seconded by Mr. Butler, to have minutes distributed before
meetings. Unanimously agreed. Debra will send copies to
members approximately one week before meeting dates.
The hearing on the application of Albert and Kathleen
Barrett for a variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the
Zoning By -law to construct an addition (one -story bedroom)
to an existing, non - conforming duplex structure at 11 Blake
Place with less than the required minimum rear yard setback
in the R -3 Zone, began at 8:15 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a plan of land and the
proposed addition dated July 10, 1990, prepared by Rim
Engineering, Inc. of Mansfield, MA as Exhibit "C." The
Planning Board, with six members present, voted one in favor
and five opposed to send a positive recommendation on this
application. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed as a voting member
for this hearing.
Mrs. Barrett explained to the board that they wish to add a
bedroom onto their half of a duplex condominium because they
and their three children now occupy only two bedrooms. The
addition would bring them approximately 5.5 feet within the
required minimum rear yard setback requirement. Mr. Clemmey
asked if they are on town sewer; they are. He also
commented that there seemed to be ample parking. Mr. Butler
asked questions relating to the financial responsibilities
of each unit owner for things like maintenance. At present,
everything is simply divided in half. Several abutters were
present to offer their support for the proposal, including
William Cleary, the co- owner, who is supportive if changes
are made on the unit's master deed. The hearing closed at
8:30.
The hearing on the application of Nancy Gray McNeely for a
variance from Section 4.7, sign regulations, of the Zoning
By -law to erect signs for two separate businesses located at
Minutes of August 6, 1991
Page 3 of 7
888 So. Main Street in the Reservoir District, began at 8:30
PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a plan of land dated July 28,
1976, prepared by Norwood Engineering Co., Inc. of Norwood,
MA as Exhibit "C"; and an artistic rendering of the proposed
business signs as Exhibit "D." A letter from the Building
Inspector stated that no provision had been made in the
current by -law for signage regulations in the Reservoir
District. The Planning Board, with six members present,
voted unanimously to recommend that the signage regulations
for Business Districts 1, 2, and 3 be applied to Reservoir
District applications. Mr. Clemmey stepped down from this
hearing, leaving the room, because his name appeared on the
applicant's plan as an abutter. Mr. Secher and Mr. DeTrolio
were both appointed as voting members for this hearing.
Mrs. McNeely reported to the board her own informal survey
of the types of signage presently displayed in Mansfield.
Because the land slopes to the rear, where the second
business is situated, she wishes to erect a free - standing
sign for Mr. Boswell's U.S. General Contractors business.
Board members asked several questions regarding the nature
of the two businesses and were shown brochures. Mrs. Cotton
expressed concern that the plan of land did not indicate the
location of the proposed free - standing sign. Mrs. McNeely
agreed to have an engineer draw a plan indicating all
dimensions and the location. The hearing closed at 8:55.
The hearing on the application of Foxfield Realty Trust of
Mansfield for a variance from Section 1.5.17.a and Section 4
Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -law to construct a single -
family dwelling on West Street (Assessor's Map 8, Lot 54),
with less than the required frontage, lot area and lot width
in the R -1 Zone began at 8:55 PM.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper
advertisement as Exhibit "B"; and a plan of land dated March
14, 1991, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Assoc. of
Mansfield, MA as Exhibit "C." The Planning Board, with six
members present, voted four in favor and two opposed to send
a negative recommendation on this application. Mr. Secher
was appointed as a voting member for this hearing.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz read the grounds for seeking a variance from
the application. Attorney Edward Valanzola, representing
the applicant, gave a history of the property, including
details of the state's land taking for the construction of
route 495 and his client's purchase of the land in 1986
based on a faulty plan. He maintained that because a
Minutes of August 6, 1991
Page 4 of 7
mortgage discharge was never filed for this parcel, the
resultant title problem could be considered a hardship. In
addition, changes in the by -law since the purchase have made
the lot non - conforming in lot area and width, even though in
many respects it is consistent to the character of other
lots in the neighborhood.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked if the applicant had been compensated
for the Route 495 land taking. Mr. Valanzola responded that
the taking had occurred before his client's purchase of the
land but that no compensation had been awarded. Mr. Secher
pointed out that the lot had been non - conforming when
Foxfield Realty Trust purchased it and that there was
therefore no hardship. Mrs. Cotton asked if any neighboring
lots had a frontage problem; they do not. Mr. Wojtkiewicz
stated that the division of all the lots in joint ownership
were divided to intentionally leave this lot with less than
the required frontage and that a title problem cannot be
considered a zoning problem. Mr. Valanzola responded that
the applicant could have chosen to make all the lots "almost
conform" to the frontage requirement. Instead, he made all
of the other surrounding lots conform, leaving only this one
with less than what is required. In addition, he feels that
allowing for the development of this lot would greatly
improve the appearance of the lot, since there have been
dumping problems there.
Several abutters were present to express their support for
the project. One abutter, Mr. Harlamert at 864 West St.,
expressed the concern that there is too much wetland for the
lot to be viable. Mr. Trowbridge, engineer for the project,
assured board members that they propose doing no fill at all
and that the Conservation Commission would have to review
the proposal before they could proceed. The hearing closed
at 9:30.
The decision on the application of Marguerite Pellegrini,
heard at the July 9th meeting, was reviewed and discussed
for clarification. Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the
Building Inspector dated August 2, 1991 stating that as the
present decision reads, he would not issue a building permit
to Mrs. Pellegrini and that the existing garage had been
demolished -- not converted, as was his understanding of the
original request. Attorney Charles Mulcahy, representing
the Pellegrinis, came before the board to clarify his
applicant's original intents, which were to retain only the
concrete pad underlying the severed garage and to build a
new structure somewhat larger than the size of the pad.
This would make it necessary to add to the existing concrete
( pad but would still come within the sideline limitation of
2.5 feet established by the board at the July 9th hearing.
Minutes of August 6, 1991
Page 5 of 7
Mr. and Mrs. Verzola, abutters at 92 Angell Street, were
present to express their dissatisfaction with this
information. Mr. DeTrolio felt that he had been misled at
the hearing into believing that the old structure would be
reworked to create the utility shed. Mr. Mulcahy pointed
out that the new utility shed would be smaller than the now -
demolished garage. Mr. Clemmey explained to the Verzolas
that there was no reason to fear that the Pellegrinis would
use the new structure as a garage because a variance is
granted for specific use.
A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mrs. Cotton
to amend the decision to clarify what is being requested.
It was unanimously agreed that the Pellegrinis be allowed to
construct a 10x16 -foot utility shed using a portion of the
existing concrete pad, with a sideline setback of 2.5 feet.
A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr.
DeTrolio to grant a variance to Eleanor McCarter.
Unanimously granted.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Butler
to grant a variance to John Bender. Unanimously granted.
( A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey to amend the application
submitted by the Barretts to reflect their correct zone and
to change the word "duplex" to "condo" in the legal
advertisement. Motion not seconded. Mr. Butler requests
that the term "single- story" be included in the decision. A
motion is made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. Butler to
grant a variance to Albert and Kathleen Barrett with the
condition that only a single -story structure be built.
Unanimously granted.
A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by ? ? ?? to
grant a variance to Nancy Gray McNeely, subject to the
applicant's submitting a plan showing the location and
dimensions of the proposed free - standing, non - illuminated
sign and a 10x4 -foot wall sign. The signs must conform to
the size regulations established for the business zones.
The free - standing sign is not in addition to any existing
free - standing sign. Unanimously granted with conditions.
Mr. Clemmey wished it noted for the record that he did not
participate in this discussion, nor was he present during
the discussion.
A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mrs. Cotton
to grant a variance to Foxfield Realty Trust. Mr. Clemmey
stated that he does not believe it would derogate from the
intent of the by -law or be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Mrs. Cotton added that it would eliminate the problem of
Minutes of August 6, 1991
Page 6 of 7
garbage dumping on the property. Mr. Secher felt there was
no case of hardship demonstrated. Mr. Clemmey claimed that
owning an undeveloped lot was a financial hardship, to which
Mr. Secher responded that the applicant had bought the
property knowing its drawbacks. Mr. DeTrolio stated that
the neighbors were not opposed. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that
he has seen many such lots like this one, a "leftover" from
a subdivision which remains undeveloped for years,
accumulating testimony as to the new makeup of the
neighborhood and how it now fits in. He restated his view
that a title problem is not a zoning problem. Mr. Butler
pointed out that all the other lots purchased at the same
time had only the minimum frontage; they could have been
divided differently, with greater frontage, simply absorbing
the area of this present lot. There was also discussion of
Mansfield being considered an "open town"- for development
and how the Master Plan and the Planning Board have been
striving in recent years to slow the rate of development.
Mr. Secher, Mr. Butler and Mr. Wojtkiewicz vote against the
motion. Mrs. Cotton and Mr. Clemmey vote in favor. Motion
fails.
After requesting and then receiving a letter of
clarification from the Planning Board regarding the request
for variance made by Dr. Stanley Sohn, a letter received
from Gary Lilienthal, Dr. Sohn's attorney, was disallowed as
part of the decision - making procedure. A motion was made by
Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to deny the request.
Mr. Secher was not convinced that a hardship exists and
felt that the Planning Board was specific in its complaints.
Mr. DeTrolio felt that the only hardship was one created by
the applicant. Mrs. Cotton expressed concern that the
property lies in the Water Protection District. Mr. Clemmey
felt that the proposal does not conform to the Master Plan
and that there would be a conflict between the granting of a
variance and the special permit already obtained for the
operation of the kennel. Specifically, "that the kennel was
proposed as an expansion of an existing use, ancillary to
the animal hospital, not as a separate and independent
use. " ** Mr. Wojtkiewicz felt that the granting of such a
variance would be setting a bad precedent. Mrs. Cotton
stated that she believes there is a financial hardship in
relation to the subdivision request and also wonders how
much emotion has played a part in this case, given the
animosity between the Sohns and the Planning Board.
Unanimously denied.
After requesting and then receiving a legal opinion from
Town Counsel Bob Mangiaratti regarding the request for an
appeal of a decision of the Building Inspector made by John
T. Mahoney III, a letter received from Edward Valanzola, Mr.
Minutes of August 6, 1991
Page 7 of 7
Mahoney's attorney, was disallowed as part of the decision -
making procedure. Mr. Wojtkiewicz drew board members'
attention to the part of Mr. Mangiaratti's letter indicating
that if they believe the Building Inspector had grounds to
deny a building permit, then his decision should be upheld.
Mr. Valanzola stated that Counsel's letter included not only
an opinion but other facts that demand rebuttal and he
should be allowed to speak as part of due process. Mr.
Wojtkiewicz stated that a rebuttal by Mr. Valanzola would
essentially constitute another hearing. A representative
from Attorney Mark Antine's office, counsel for several
abutters, asserted that if Mr. Valanzola spoke he would
demand an opportunity for his own rebuttal. Mr. Valanzola
then suggested that Mr. Mangiaratti's letter not be allowed
into the record, as it constituted the board's acceptance of
new information after the public hearing had closed.
A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr.
DeTrolio to uphold the decision of the Inspector of
Buildings. Mrs. Cotton feels there are serious questions
about the amount of existing frontage and the ability of
safety vehicles to navigate the road. Several members
agreed, after viewing the site, that it would be hard to
classify this portion of Keefe Street as anything more than
a right of way. Mr. Clemmey stated that there are many such
streets in Mansfield. Mrs. Cotton, Mr. DeTrolio and Mr.
Wojtkiewicz vote to uphold the decision of the Building
Inspector. Mr. Clemmey votes to overturn the decision. A
vote will be sought from Dr. Sohn, who was present for the
hearing and received a copy of Town Counsel's letter.
Decision of the Inspector of Buildings is upheld.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 PM.
Respectful�ly� / submitted,
�i?CZZ�/ - �C� C��`✓
Mary -Lou Cotton
Clerk
Next meeting September 3, 1991
I