Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_02041992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( MINUTES February 4, 1992 The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the To Hall, Mansfield, MA, at 7:30 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: George Wojtkiewicz, Chairman; Mary -Lou Cotton, Clerk; Eric Butler; Karl Clemmey; Leonard Flynn; Peter DeTrolio and Richard Secher, Associate Members; Richard Lewis, Conservation Committee. The hearing on the application of James and Audrey Crockett for a Variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to construct an attached two -car garage to an existing structure at 972 Maple Street with less than the required minimum side -yard setback in the R -1 Zone began at 7:30 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a Plan of Land dated 12/27/91 prepared by Sharon Survey Service of Sharon, MA, as Exhibit "C"; and an architectural rendition prepared by D.A. Baker Construction Company of Foxboro, MA, as Exhibit "D ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With four members present, they voted one in favor and three opposed to send a positive recommendation on the application. Mrs. Cotton also read into the record a letter from an abutter, Michael and Linda Lewis of 2 Lewis Road, which stated that they have no objections to the proposed construction. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked the applicants to state their hardship. Mr. Crockett explained that his only hardship is the shape of his property and that it is more pleasing and convenient to construct the garage on the side of the house he proposes. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked if they were the original owners, and Mr. Crockett replied yes. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked how long they lived there, and Mr. Crockett replied eight years. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked why they didn't construct a garage eight years ago, and Mr. Crockett explained that he wants to take advantage of the current low financing. Mr. Crockett stated that he spoke to his neighbors,. all of which had no objections to the proposed construction. Mr. Butler asked if they would consider building a one -car garage as the Planning Board suggested, and Mr. Crockett explained that they have two cars and a one -car garage addition is not aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Crockett explained that they put a lot of thought behind the construction -- a breezeway and one -car garage versus a two -car garage -- and also an unattached garage which would even be closer to their side property line. Mrs. Crockett also explained that the further back into the property, more ledge and rock is encountered. Mr. Clemmey asked how many abutters have two -car garages, and Mr. and Mrs. Crockett determined approximately 80 percent. N Minutes of February 4, 1992 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Flynn suggested constructing the garage without the middle section, but Mr. Crockett explained that only a few feet would be saved and he needs a 24' wide garage. Mr. Flynn then suggested constructing the garage in another location, such as in the front of their house, but Mrs. Crockett explained their septic is in front as well as landscaping. No abutters were present. The hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. The hearing on the application of Leo and Joanne Scally for a Variance from Section 4 Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law to construct a one -car garage with family room over to an existing structure at 5 Hartford Road with less than the required minimum side yard and front yard setbacks in the R -1 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a Plan of Land dated 12/19/91 prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., of Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With four members present, they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the application. Richard Lewis asked Mr. Scally to explain the 4 feet connection between the proposed addition and the existing house. Mr. Lewis, concern in speaking with the Building Inspector is that the connection may be considered an integral part (Section 3.8.1.a of the Zoning By -Law). Mr. Scally explained that the family room above the proposed one -car garage will be connected to the second story of the existing house through a 4' or 6' L- shaped hallway over a foundation. He intends to tear down the existing deck, build the hallway and roof, and rebuild the deck around the hallway. Mr. Clemmey asked if the cement for the proposed garage and foundation of the hallway will be poured at the same time, and Mr. Scally said he could pour the two at the same time. Mrs. Cotton asked if the rebuilt deck will have the same dimensions as the existing one, and Mr. Scally replied yes. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Lewis if the Board granted a variance to Mr. Scally, did he see trouble in obtaining a building permit. Mr. Lewis stated that he did not have enough background information. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Scally if his intent was to connect the family room to the house at the same time as the addition is built, and Mr. Scally replied yes. Mr. Flynn noted that since there are no elevation plans included, it is hard to determine the exact connection. No abutters were present. The hearing closed at 8:05 P.N. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to grant a variance to James and Audrey Crockett. Mr. Clemmey felt that the Crocketts should be consistent with their neighbors who have two -car garages, and Mr. Butler felt that their hardship is Minutes of February 4, 1992 Page 3 of 4 that the width of their lot is significantly less than the frontage. Unanimously granted. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Leo and Joanne Scally. Mr. Clemmey felt that they demonstrated a hardship with their plot. Unanimously granted. The minutes of January 21, 1992, were approved. Mr. Wojtkiewicz read correspondence from the Planning Board regarding budget reductions in personal services and advertising. Mr. Lewis explained that Conservation and the Planning Board require applicants to pay separately for advertising fees and feels that there should be consistency between the Boards. Terri Shaw determined an average advertising cost per applicant to be $15.00 per ad ($30.00 since the ad is shown twice), and Mr. Lewis felt that this cost is not exorbitant. There was discussion about the various application fees for the different Boards and the process of each Board. It was determined that the consensus of the Zoning Board of Appeals is that the $135.00 application fee was set so the Board would be self- sustaining, not a revenue source. if advertising costs were collected separately, then the application fee possibly should be reduced. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Lewis to research the Zoning Board's expenses versus revenue, including overhead such as lights, postage, Mr. Lewis' time, etc. Mr. Wojtkiewicz also asked Mr. Lewis to research who is responsible for reducing and increasing fees of the Zoning Board. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked the Board to vote on the reorganization and election of Chairman and Clerk /unofficial Vice - Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. Butler to nominate George Wojtkiewicz as Chairman. Unanimously re- elected. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Flynn to nominate Mary -Lou Cotton as Clerk and unofficial Vice - Chairman. Unanimously re- elected. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that Franklin Quigley telephoned him about reapplying for a variance for Cardelli's gas station on Pratt Street. He explained that Mr. Quigley intends to submit a new plan with one gas island instead of two. Mr. Wojtkiewicz advised Mr. Quigley to have his attorney talk to Town Counsel as the two -year rule may be in question. Mr. Clemmey stated that he doesn't agree, that taxpayer's money should not be spent, and that Mr. Quigley should be able to reapply with a new plan. Mr. Flynn agreed that the Board should not get involved before Mr. Quigley resubmits his application. Mr. Wojtkiewicz explained that Town Counsel will only be asked if the application is truly different from the previous l one. Mr. Butler stated that the Board will be able to Minutes of February 4, 1992 Page 4 of 4 determine if the application is different or not at the time of the hearing. Mr. Flynn read the two -year rule from Chapter 40A. It was determined that the Zoning Board makes a judgment whether the application is substantially different or not in a separate hearing and whether the applicant has a right to apply. Then the Planning Board makes its usual recommendation. Mr. Lewis will talk to Town Counsel and discuss Mr. Quigley's case in a generic sense. Mr. Flynn stated that since he has been on the Zoning Board in 1992, he feels that plans submitted did not include enough information (for example, elevation plans), not enough copies, etc. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that Mr. Lewis should clear up some of the details since he is now reviewing applications before the hearings. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary -Lou Cotton Clerk Next meeting February 18, 1992