HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_06021992`1 U(u)
,,5 C fiL-
ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES 92 JUL 13 All 9: 04
June 2, 1992 1'i "t31 it l-[)
hSS;a(:Ht1C- 1 TS
The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at
7:50 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: George Wojtkiewicz,
Chairman; Mary-Lou Cotton, Clerk; Leonard Flynn; Karl Clemmey; Richard Secher,
Associate Member; and Richard Lewis, Zoning Board of Appeals Advisor.
Mr. Richard Secher was appointed as a voting member for this hearing in place of Eric
Butler.
The appeal by The Great Woods, Inc. of a Determination by the Inspector of Buildings
that certain specific areas (flea markets, auction, auto shows) are not permitted uses or
listed as permitted uses in the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Section 3,
Schedule 3.5 at 885 South Main Street for the 11 Zone, originally scheduled for 8:30
P.M., was withdrawn without prejudice by Mr. Bruce Montgomery at 7:50 P.M.
The hearing on the application of a Leo and Helen Peloquin for a variance from Section
4, Schedule 4.2.1 for a lot located at 358 Central Street with less than the required
frontage in the R -2 Zone began at 7:55 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a
Plan of Land dated March 4, 1992 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 (4) members present they voted unanimously to send a
negative recommendation for the following reasons: (1) That this application
substantially derogates from the intent of the Zoning By -Law as it relates to minimum
frontage requirements and lot width definition; (2) Financial hardship is not a hardship
under Chapter 40(A); The applicants created their own hardship when creating Form A
lots in March of this year, after being advised not to by the Planning Board; and (4)
The locations of driveways so close together may create a public safety hazard for those
entering and exiting onto Central Street.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Peloquin to explain his hardship, Attorney Leo Peloquin,
Jr. spoke for his parents. He began by explaining that there was an error in regard to
the amount of frontage and the Peloquins are actually looking for a variance on
Copeland Street, not Central Street. Mr. Clemmey explained that assessor's plans are
not accurate and an engineer's map would have to be seen.
Minutes of June 2, 1992
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that the application is not in order and it was not advertised
correctly in the newspaper. The Planning Board is also under the assumption that the
driveways are on Central Street, not Copeland Drive.
Mr. Peloquin stated that he does not feel he should have to pay for another application
fee but he will pay for another advertising fee.
Mr. Clemmey made a motion to waive the fee and have Mr. Peloquin pay for the
advertising fee. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cotton. Mr. Peloquin will pay
50% of the $195.00 fee.
Mr. Peloquin requested that the application be withdrawn without prejudice.
The hearing closed at 8:15 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Stephen McColgan for a variance from Section 4,
Schedule 4.2.1 for the conforming expansion of a non - conforming structure located at
147 Dean Street with less than the required front yard setback in the R -2 Zone began at
8:15 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as
Exhibit "B "; a Plan of Land dated April 24, 1992 prepared by Rim Engineering Co.,
Inc., of Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning
Board into the record. With four (4) members present they voted unanimously to send
a positive recommendation on the above referenced application. The application does
not appear to derogate from the intent of the Zoning By -Law in light of Section 6 of
Chapter 40 A.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. McColgan to explain his hardship. Mr. McColgan
explained that they are a family of four. The house is 100 years old and has no closet
space. The house was built very close to the street, and with the new addition it will be
34 feet from the property line. They plan to add on and update the kitchen, and build a
walk -in closet.
Mr. Clemmey asked if the house is on town sewer. Mr. McColgan said the house was
not, but he has had it tied into town sewer. Mr. Clemmey also stated that he spoke
with two of Mr. McColgan's neighbors and they were in favor of his fixing up his
house and it will be an asset to the neighborhood.
The hearing closed at 8:25.
The hearing on the application of Hampshire Street Associates for a variance from
Section 4.7.2.2 for the installation of an illuminated wall sign at the rear of the
Mansfield Host Hotel located at 31 Hampshire Street in the I1Zone began at 8:25 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a
Plan of Proposed Sign dated May 4, 1992 prepared by Centredale Sign Co., of
Johnston, R.I., as Exhibit "C ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into
Minutes of June 2, 1992
Page 3 of 5
the record. With four (4) members present they voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation contingent upon the wording of the sign and size of lettering being
included in the variance.
Attorney Maria C. Rota, representing Fine Hotels Corporation and Allan W. Kronberg,
General Manager of the hotel introduced themselves.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Ms. Rota to explain the hardship. She explained that as of last
week the hotel officially became the Holiday Inn. The Building Inspector had been
approached to get a building permit for the sign and when he reviewed the
specifications he explained that the Town By -Laws permitted one wall sign. They plan
to have one sign in the front and they need a variance for a second sign in the rear of
the building near the tennis courts. It will be visible from the highway. The sign is the
Holiday Inn starburst holographic logo. It is a non -glare soft green (neon illuminated
light.) The dimensions will be approximately six (6) feet high; and including the
starburst insignia, will be thirty-six (36) feet long. All materials are translucent with
no moving lights. Due to the location of the hotel, which is the last building in the
area, the only visibility it has is from Route 95.
Mr. Clemmey and Mr. Flynn discussed the large size of the sign. It would be the
largest sign in the industrial park.
The hearing closed at 8:35 P.M.
The hearing on the application of CTI- Cryogenics and Helix Corporation for a variance
from Section 4.7.2.2 to install two wall signs at the rear of the buildings at 9 & 11
Hampshire Street in the I1Zone began at 8:40 P.M. The application was labeled
Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a rendering of the sign location
dated April 27, 1992 prepared by Advanced Signing, Inc., of Medway, MA, as Exhibit
"C ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With four (4)
members present they voted unanimously to recommend that the size of the sign be
clearly noted on the plan.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Ms. Hazel Wood Hopkins to explain the hardship. She
explained that they are requesting a variance for two wall signs to be visible from Rt.
495 and Rt. 95. They have two buildings at 9 and 11 Hampshire Street. They are
requesting two signs, internally illuminated, measuring 56 square feet. They are asking
to install one sign on the south elevation, where the temporary banner is now located.
They are not sure whether the second sign should be located in the rear of the building,
which is the west side, or on the side of the building, which is the north side. They
would like to leave the decision open as to the placement of the signs. They feel that
the sign would direct clients and give identification to the building. The sign in the
front for CTI is blue lighting and the sign for Helix, which is a division of CTI, is a
white light. There is no glare and no movement from the lights.
Minutes of June 2, 1992
Page 4 of 5
Mr. Clemmey brought up the point that their neighbors, who just applied for a variance
for a sign, are asking for a much bigger sign.
They are hoping that if this variance is approved, the decision will state that the sign
could be installed either on the north elevation or the west elevation at the 11
Hampshire Street location. They also feel that the 9 Hampshire Street location is
entitled to a wall sign and they would like it on the south elevation where the temporary
sign is now.
The hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M.
A motion was made by Leonard Flynn to accept the Motion for withdrawal without
prejudice on the Great Woods application. It was seconded by Mary-Lou Cotton.
Motion is passed 4 -0.
A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Ms. Cotton to grant a variance
to Stephen McColgan. Unanimously granted.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Ms. Cotton to grant a variance to
Hampshire Street Associates. The restriction is that the sign can be no larger than 36
feet long by 6 feet high. Unanimously granted.
A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a variance
to CTI/Helix. The restriction is that the sign stays on the facade of the building below
the roof line. Mr. Flynn stated that he feels the signs are a visual distraction and
doubted that any of the signs requested would be viewable from the highway due to
trees on state property. Mrs. Cotton stated she did not see the need for the signs to be
visible from the highway since it was not a retail business which would be trying to
attract "drive -by" business. Motion denied on a vote of 3 -2.
Mr. Clemmey made a recommendation to change the wording in the minutes to say
"voting in place of" instead of "voting for" when a member is absent and an associate
member is voting in his place.
The Minutes of May 19 were unanimously approved.
The matter of Charles and Karen Michener, 35 Highland Avenue was discussed. They
have been turned down by the Building Inspector for a permit. Mr. Michener wants to
put an addition on the second story of the house which does not infringe upon the
outside dimensions of the house. Because of the expansion of the non - conforming
structure, the Building Inspector will not issue a permit. Bert Cook wants the Zoning
Board to write a letter to him explaining what they granted to the Micheners. Mary-
Lou Cotton and Karen Lawlor should work on that letter.
Minutes of June 2, 1992
Page 5 of 5
The Meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,,
Mary-Lou Cotton
Clerk