Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_10151991RFCEI "c U { GV!, i r (,` NSFIELU 91 NOV 22 UM 2t 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I' A IELD MINUTES M A SS Cf;USETTS October 15, 1991 The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at 7:30 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: George Wojtkiewicz, Chairman; Mary -Lou Cotton, Clerk; Karl Clemmey; Stanley Sohn; Richard Secher, Associate Member. The hearing on the application of Cabot Partners for a Variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.2 and Section 1.5.17a of the Zoning By -Law to allow for less than the minimum required frontage on parcels defined as follows: Assessor's Map 44, Lots 870 and 880; and less than the required lot width on parcels defined as follows: Assessor's Map 44, Lots 860, 870, and 880 in the I -1 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a plan of land dated September 4, 1991, prepared by Norwood Engineering Company, Inc., of Norwood, MA, as Exhibit "C ". The Planning Board with five members present voted unanimously to send a positive 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. Mr. Bruce Tyson of TGG Land Planning, Inc., Needham, MA, represented Cabot Partners and presented their case to the Board. He explained that wetlands cover 50 -60% of the total lots and that streets could not be built over the wetlands. Because of these wetlands and their restrictions, four distinct lots are created (850, 860, 870, and 880). However, Cabot Partners is not seeking a variance for Lot 850. Mr. Tyson explained that Cabot Partners wish to reduce the proposed length of Plymouth Street and create a cul -de -sac. He also stated that the frontage would be consistent with other buildings on cul -de- sacs in the Industrial Park. Mr. Secher asked if there would be access from the cul -de -sac to these lots and Mr. Tyson replied yes. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked if. the variance was granted, would any and all future construction /development conform to other Zoning By -Laws so as not to cause other hardships to perspective buyers. Mr. Wojtkiewicz did not want a "domino" effect in which a different owner would in turn have to seek another variance for a different non- conformance. Mr. Tyson assured that all rear l setbacks, parking lots, total coverage, and any other Zoning requirements would conform to existing By -Laws. Minutes of October 15, 1991 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Clemmey asked who owns the property. Mr. Tyson replied Mansfield Commerce Realty Trust. Mr. Clemmey then expressed his concern on the behalf of the Town of Mansfield in that Lot 850 is land- locking approximately 50 acres of town property. Mr. Clemmey felt that even though the Planning Board sent a positive recommendation for the variance, Cabot Partners did not sufficiently show a hardship. Mr. Tyson stated that Cabot Partners granted a 50 feet easement to the town that would allow the town access to their property for recreational purposes. Mr. Clemmey stated that he also felt there would be a problem with safety, traffic flow, and parking. He also felt there should be some indication of what will be built on the lots and where the access roads would be placed, as the Plan of Land did not include same. Mr. Tyson replied that at this time there are no exact plans of development, but there would be four driveways. Mr. Tyson again assured that any development would conform to regulations in the By -Laws. Mrs. Cotton asked if any development would maintain the required distances from the wetlands and Mr. Tyson replied yes. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked if Cabot Partners was willing to give an open -ended right -of -way or to deed over a little piece of land. Mr. Tyson replied that because it was not his land, he did not have authority to deed over a piece of land. Mr. Tyson again explained that the easement covers the land -lock issue. Mr. Tyson stated that the applicant's hardship is that they cannot construct the streets as originally planned to gain access to the lots in question. Mr. Clemmey asked if the town land in question was set aside for recreational purposes only. Mr. Tyson explained that the Selectman negotiated with Cabot Partners for the easement and that they asked for the land be set aside for recreational purposes. No abutters were present. The hearing closed at 8:30 The hearing on the application of Cabot Partners for a Variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.2 of the Zoning By -Law to reconfigure three parcels defined as follows: Assessor's Map 44, Lots 224A, 224B, and 216, creating two lots with less than the required frontage in the I -1 Zone began at 8:30 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a plan of land dated July 26, 1991, prepared by Norwood Engineering Company, Inc., of Norwood, MA, as Exhibit "C ". The Planning Board with five members present voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Mr. Secher was appointed as a voting member for this hearing. Minutes of October 15, 1991 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Wojtkiewicz read the grounds for seeking a variance from th, application. Mr. Bruce Tyson of TGG Land Planning, Inc., Needham, MA, represented Cabot Partners and presented their case to the Board. He explained that buildings and parking lots are already constructed, and the proposed reconfiguration of the parcels would make them simpler, more organized to maintain and to gain access to. Mr. Tyson further explained the history of the lots, that the Foxboro Company and other companies expanded requiring additional parking lots and easements, and that the proposed reconfiguration accommodates the ease of access and maintenance of the existing facilities. Mr. Tyson stated that the frontage requirements are short 10 feet in one instance and 15 feet in the other, and that the existing buildings conform ii all other respects. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked if Lot 262, an open parcel, is ready for development. Mr. Tyson replied yes, and any development would conform to all Zoning By -Laws if built. Mr. Clemmey felt that k granting a Variance, it would give Cabot Partners an opportunit; to create an existing parking lot into a buildable lot. Dr. Sot asked if a Variance was granted, how long does Cabot Partners have to construct a building, for example, if a year passes, would the Variance still be valid. The Board all confirmed that Cabot Partners would have to build within a year if a Variance was granted. Mr. Tyson stated that the lot is buildable at present. Bob Mainones of Norwood Engineering, also representing the applicant, stated that the lot is already buildable, but wa: chosen to be a parking lot at one time. No abutters were present. The hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. The hearing on the application of Jeffrey Elofson for a Variance from Section 3.10.3 and Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to convert a single - family dwelling at 32 Branch Street a two - family dwelling with less than the required minimum lot area in the R -3 Zone began at 8:45 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisemen- as Exhibit "B "; and a plan of land dated August 6, 1991, prepare. by David E. Grant of Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". The Plannii Board with five members present voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this application. Mr. Secher was appointed as a voting member for this hearing. Mrs. Cotton read into the record the Building Inspector`s letter to Mr. Elofson. The letter stated that the applicant would nee( a Variance under Section 3.10.3, which is abandonment of a pre- existing non- conforming use, as his research indicated that the two - family use was abandoned from 1980 -1986. The letter also stated that the applicant would need a Variance under Schedule 4.2.1 as the lot is only 5,000 square feet and requirements for Minutes of October 15, 1991 Page 4 of 5 two - family with town sewerage in an R -3 Zone is 15,000 square feet. Mr. Wojtkiewicz thought in speaking with Mr. Elofson over the phone before the hearing that the dwelling was used as a two - family all along. Mr. Elofson stated that in fact from 1980 -19E it was used as a single - family, but from 1986 on it was used as two - family and his wife rented the second floor apartment from 1990 until they bought the house. Mrs. Cotton read the grounds for seeking a variance from the application. Mr. Elofson explained that presently there is no one living upstairs and his hardship is that the pre- existing structure was set up as a two - family as there are kitchen facilities upstairs. Mr. Elofson also felt that the property would have more value as a two- family. Mrs. Cotton asked if the entire dwelling (both downstairs and upstairs) was used from 1980 -1986 or only a portion of it. Mr. Elofson did not know. Mr. Secher asked if the mortgage stipulated the dwelling as a single- family. Mr. Elofson explained that the mortgage was approved as a single - family. He further explained that because the mortgage was processed throu€ a mortgage broker, there were many restrictions and it would hav been too complicated at the time to consider the dwelling as a two - family. Mr. Wojtkiewicz felt that the house was designed as a one - family Mr. Elofson stated his understanding was that it was built as a two - family. Mr. Clemmey asked if the property had town sewerage Mr. Elofson replied yes. Mr. Clemmey asked about the parking facilities. Mr. Elofson explained that the driveway fits three cars, one parking behind another, or a car could park on a lot i front. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked the applicant's plans for living, i.e., would he and his wife live downstairs and tenants upstair. Mr. Elofson replied yes. One abutter was present, Gordon Ennis of 40 Branch Street, who stated that to his knowledge the house was intended as a single - family. Mr. Ennis helped one owner build kitchen facilities upstairs so the owner's daughter could have a separate apartment but from 1945 to present, the house was mostly used as a single - family. Mr. Ennis stated that there have been problems with parking in the past as cars park out front and get tickets. Mr. Ennis also felt that the Board should be consistent with their decisions as Mr. Todesco, another abutter, was denied a Variance under the same conditions. The hearing closed at �, 9:05 P.M. Minutes of October 15, 1991 Page 5 of 5 The minutes of October 1, 1991, were approved. Mr. Clemmey stated that he wished to change his address to P.O. Box 75 as h sometimes does not receive correspondence. A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mr. Secher to gra a Variance to Cabot Partners for their first application. Mr. Clemmey restated that he felt a hardship was not sufficient proven and that the Town of Mansfield should have negotiated a right -of -way to their own property before Cabot Partners came before the Board. Mr. Wojtkiewicz felt that before any decisio was made on this hearing the easement should be researched to check if the property is stipulated for recreational purposes only or if the property can be used for any purpose. The application was tabled until the next hearing on November 19, 1991. A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to grant a Variance to Cabot Partners for their second application Mr. Secher stated that the parking should be continuous insteac of unorganized. Mr. Clemmey restated that he felt a hardship w not sufficiently proven and that if a Variance was granted, the Board will create another buildable lot. Mr. Clemmey also stat that some day there will not be enough parking facilities. Mr. Clemmey felt that Cabot Partners will be in front of the Board some time in the future for variances for other building-- Mr. Secher, Mrs. Cotton, Mr. Wojtkiewicz, and Dr. Sohn voted it favor of the motion. Mr. Clemmey voted against the motion. Motion approved. A motion was made by Dr. Sohn and seconded by Mr. Secher to der. a Variance to Jeffrey Elofson. Mr. Wojtkiewicz felt the lot WE far too small to consider the dwelling a two- family and that tl Board should be consistent with their decisions. Unanimously denied. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary -Lou Cotton Clerk Next meeting November 19, 1991