Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_01211992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 21, 1992 RECLr IVFD TO''", M:' �`;Ai „'S IELD 92 FEB -5 PM 3: 56 .: -, L D i I „r,.�r IE ._i � i °IA SSACHi _ �E T i S 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: Mary -Lou Cotton, Acting Chairperson; Eric Butler, Acting Clerk; Leonard Flynn; Peter DeTrolio and Richard Secher, Associate Members; Richard Lewis, Conservation Committee. The hearing on the application of Sun Chemical for a Variance from Section 4.7.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to erect a free- standing illuminated sign at 320 Forbes Boulevard with more than the required maximum square footage began at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Secher and Mr..DeTrolio were appointed as voting members for this hearing in place of Mr. Wojtkiewicz and Mr. Clemmey. The application was labeled Exhibit "A”; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a Plan of Land dated 5/22/89, and revised 12/4/91, prepared by Arthur F. Borden & Associates, Inc., of Raynham, MA, as Exhibit "C"; and a drawing of the proposed sign as Exhibit "D ". Mr. Butler read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With five members present, they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the application. Robert Vachon, Operations Manager of Sun Chemical, presented the case to the Board. Mr. Vachon explained that Sun Chemical presently does not have a sign. The company used to have a wall sign, but has since renovated the building with a stone facade. For the past year, the company has tried, through contractors, to construct a sign, but the contractors never followed through with plans. Therefore, Sun Chemical had taken the matter into their own hands. Mr. Vachon passed out pictures of the actual sign which has already been made. He explained that the sign was purchased by his corporate headquarters after discussions with Cabot, Cabot & Forbes executives as they told him there would be no problem with the size of the proposed sign. Mr. Butler commented that the proposed sign at 4' by 16' seems excessive, and Mr. Vachon explained that his corporate headquarters purchased the sign along with mqny others the same size which will be used for the various Sun Chdmical locations. Mr. Vachon further explained that the sign will be placed on a brick platform 2' high with flower arrangements surrounding it. Mrs. Cotton asked if the sign will be on top of the.wall, and Mr. Vachon explained that the sign will be on a 3' base. Mr. Flynn asked if the sign will be illuminated, and Mr. Vachon explained that the sign is equipped with internal lighting, but Minutes of January 21, 1992 Page 2 of 4 that the illumination was not necessary as Sun Chemical conducts business during the day. Mr. Vachon asked if a notation could be added to the decision stipulating that the sign not be illuminated. Mr. DeTrolio commented that the proposed size of the sign is over twice what is normally allowed. Mr. Lewis asked if a comparison had been done on other free - standing signs in the industrial park. Mr. Vachon explained that he personally had not done comparisons, but has heard that one other location which accommodates multi- businesses has a sign the same size and also the directory sign for the industrial park is approximately the same size. Mr. Flynn commented that he drove through the entire industrial park and did not find a sign the same size. No abutters were present. The hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. The hearing on the application of Charles and Karen Michener for a Variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to allow an existing single - family dwelling at 35 Highland Avenue with less than the required minimum front yard setback, rear yard and side yard setbacks, area, and frontage requirements in the R -3 Zone began at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Secher and Mr. DeTrolio were appointed as voting members for this hearing in place of Mr. Wojtkiewicz and Mr. Clemmey. ( The application was labeled Exhibit "All; newspaper advertisement- as Exhibit "B "; a Plan of Land dated 12/17/91, prepared by Yarworth Engineering and Land Surveying of Norton, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Butler read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With seven members present they voted six in favor with one abstention to send a positive recommendation on the application. Karen Michener presented the case to the Board. She explained that they purchased the house 10 years ago from the Uvas (Helen). At that time they thought a legal title search had been done, but found out eight months ago when they tried to refinance that the property was illegally subdivided in 1979. The Micheners tried to purchase the other half of the lot, but the Uvas did not wish to sell. Mrs. Michener explained that they had their land surveyed and are before the Board because they need a variance in order to refinance. Mr. Michener explained that when they bought their house they went in with a low bid, and the Uvas accepted the bid with the stipulation that they could only purchase half the property. The Michener's first tax bill was for 15,000 square feet, but the deed stated they owned only 7,500 square feet. Mrs. Cotton asked which lot the Micheners own, and Mrs. Michener ( replied Lot 438. Mr. Butler asked if it is Lot 82 that the Micheners want to purchase, and they replied yes. Mrs. Michener Minutes of January 21, 1992 Page 3 of 4 explained that Lot 82 is currently vacant and Helen Uva owns it, but that Lot 85 has a two - family on it and needs part of Lot 82 to conform to the By -Law. It was determined that Helen Uva also owned Lot 85. Mrs. Michener explained that the house built on Lot 85 was supposed to be a single - family as a variance was granted for same, but a two - family house was constructed instead. Mr. Michener explained that if Mrs. Uva sold part of Lot 82 to them, both Lots 85 and 438 would conform to the By -Law. Mr. Michener feels that she will not sell part of Lot 82 because she may try again for a variance to declare the lot buildable. Mr. Lewis asked if the Michener's attorney 10 years ago made'a mistake, and Mrs. Michener replied yes. She explained that her current attorney now is counseling them to seek a variance in order to refinance or sell. Mr. Lewis commented that the lot was subdivided on paper but not with the Planning Board. Mrs. Michener stated that she sent a letter to the Building Inspector in April of 1991 asking for zoning to be enforced on Lot 85 and never received a response, even after numerous telephone calls after the letter was sent. Mrs. Michener stated that she is concerned something will be built on the vacant lot as the neighborhood is already too congested. Abutters were present but did not comment. The hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to approve the minutes of January 7, 1992. Unanimously approved. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to deny a variance to Sun Chemical. Mr. Flynn stated that the size is more than double and there are no specifications on lighting or height. Mr. Secher felt that no hardship had been proven and the size substantially derogates from the By -Law. Unanimously denied. A motion.was made by Mr. Flynn to table the decision on Charles and Karen Michener until more research could be done on the lots in question, but it was determined that the research would have no effect on the current request before the Board. A motion was made by Mr. peTrolio and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant the variance. Mrs Cotton felt that the Micheners have a genuine hardship. Mr.. DeTrolio, Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cotton, and Mr. Secher voted in favor of the motion and Mr. Flynn voted against the motion. Motion granted. R Minutes of January 21, 1992 Page 4 of 4 Mrs. Cotton read the Zoning Board of Appeal's recent correspondence regarding fee increases, warrant articles, and a change in the By -Law. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Respectfull submitted, �1 Eric Butler Acting Clerk Next meeting February 4, 1992