Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_10061992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 6, 1992 92110V I9 l;; 9: 41+ c' - L 0 The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at 7 :35 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: George Wojtkiewicz, Chairman; Mary -Lou Cotton, Clerk; Leonard Flynn; Karl Clemmey; Eric Butler; Peter DeTrolio, Associate Member; Richard Secher, Associate Member, and Richard Lewis, Zoning Board of Appeals Advisor. The hearing on the application of Elizabeth Ryder for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 to construct an addition to a non - conforming structure at 96 South Main Street with less than the required front and side yard setbacks, lot frontage, and required minimum lot area in the R -2 Zone began at 7:35 P.M. Mr. DeTrolio was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Clemmey. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B"; a Plan of Land dated September 16, 1992, prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Inc., of Mansfield, MA as Exhibit "C "; and a Rendition Framing Plan of the proposed deck as Exhibit "D ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With five (5) members present they voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on the application. Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the applicant, Elizabeth Ryder, dated October 6, 1992 into the record. "I am the owner of the above referenced property and the applicant before the Board to seek a variance to construct a 14' x 16' wooden deck attached to the rear of my house. More particularly, the variance is sought from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 to allow construction to an existing non - conforming structure. The non - conformity is based on the dwelling not meeting the required front and side yard setbacks and because the lot does not have the frontage or area required in a R -2 zone. As shown on the plot plan submitted with the application, the proposed deck will meet the current sideyard requirement of 15 feet, since 6 feet will be provided at the far corner of the deck and 15 feet where the deck connects to the house. (The 14 foot dimension shown on the plot plan is measured from the property line to the foundation corner.) Therefore, the reason for this application stems from the non - conformity of the lot and the existing structure. The request for a variance has been necessitated because of the specific shape of this lot and because of the positioning of the structure on the lot. As the applicant, and having recently acquired the property (June 1992), 1 am desirous of improving the property by Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 2 of 8 constructing the deck. The deck as proposed will not exceed the current width of the house and as earlier stated will conform to the 15 foot sideyard requirement. This expansion is quite obviously residential in nature, therefore I believe it would be a hardship to not be able to make this improvement. I believe the granting of this variance would not result in substantial detriment to the public good nor would it derogate the intent or purpose of the zoning by -laws for the reasons presented above. Additionally the abutting 6 lots immediately south of this lot and fronting on South Main Street all have less than 100 feet frontage required by zoning. This tends to substantiate the granting of the variance and will not detract from the zoning by -laws. Lastly attached to this letter is a statement signed by the abutters acknowledging they support this request for a variance. I thank the Board for its time in reviewing this application and trust that the Board will find in favor of the requested variance. As an abutter to Elizabeth Ryder, who resides at 96 South Main Street, I have no objections to her proposal of constructing a 14 foot by 16 foot wooden deck that would abut to the rear of her current residential dwelling located on lot 258. Signed by Mildred Beatty, Roger Perry, Nancy Perry, Mary Bruno and Rob Bruno." Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Ms. Ryder to explain her hardship. Ms. Ryder explained she would like to improve the lot. She has a nice back yard and would like to add a deck to the back of the house, take out a window in the kitchen and put sliding glass doors in. Ms. Ryder was commended by Mr. Butler and Mr. Flynn for doing a very good job on her presentation and on filling out the application. The hearing closed on 7:45. The hearing on the application of Mansfield Jeep Eagle Chrysler Plymouth for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.2, Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts, for the alteration of a non - conforming structure at 91 Chauncy Street with less than the required front, side and rear yard setbacks, greater than the allowed floor -to -area ratio, and less than the required minimum open space in the 1 -3 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Secher was appointed as a voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Clemmey. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a Plan of Land dated September 16, 1992, prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Inc., of Mansfield, MA as Exhibit "C "; a copy of Article 9 of Town Meeting dated Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 3 of 8 October 10, 1992 as Exhibit "D "; and a Deed of the Premises as Exhibit "E ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With five (5) members present they voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on the application. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Connor, the applicant, to explain his hardship. Attorney Charles Bennett, Attleboro, MA, introduced himself. He is representing Mr. and Mrs. Connor, owners of the property. Because of their franchise, they are being required to make improvements to their property. The rear part of the building has to be partitioned off, so it will be usable for the purpose of the franchise. For just a small additional cost, instead of just making repairs and improvements, they can take down just the rear part of their building, which is stone, and replace it with a new metal building. The windows now located at the rear of the building will not be there with the new building, and the use of the building will be the same. Mr. Bennett then asked that his request for a variance be changed to a special permit. He further explained that the Board has to make one finding and that finding is that the change will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing building. Mr. Bennett further stated that they are using the same footprint; the front of the building will remain the same; the use of the building will not be changed; and the rear of the building will become more attractive. During the period of construction the rear of the building will have to be removed. The demolition contractor, Hercules of Brockton, MA, has indicated that he will be using a back hoe, and continuously wets down the building to control the dirt and dust being created. The demolition and removal of the old building will take one work week and possibly as little as 3 working days. Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Bennett, if he was going to receive either a special permit or a variance, which does he prefer. A special permit has less stringent requirements. Mr. Bennett would like to receive a special permit. The applicant, Mr. Connor explained that he is trying to create a better building instead of just repairing an old one. He stated that a new steel building would be long lasting, a nice appearance, less maintenance and better security. Also, the new building would contain a new sprinkler system. They will be able to service their customers better and have a more presentable building. The roof line will have a new low pitched roof. Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 4 of 8 The Connor family has been in business in Mansfield since 1917; when the building was built. They are expanding the showroom and reversing the areas inside to create more room. Mr. James Giblin, 18 Draper Avenue, an abutter directly behind the applicants property, stated that he has no objections for putting up the new building. He presented a letter to the Board which Mrs. Cotton read into the record. "This letter is written to express the concerns of myself, my wife, Charlene, my brother, John Giblin, and his wife, Diane, regarding the demolition and construction that will be taking place at the Mansfield Jeep -Eagle dealership, 91 Chauncy Street, Mansfield. We are co- owners of the property at 18 Draper Avenue, Mansfield, MA. 18 Draper Avenue abuts the Mansfield Jeep -Eagle dealership whose representative will be appearing before various Town Boards concerning the demolition of the dealership's existing structure, and the building in the same space of a new structure. We ask that the Board take into consideration during their deliberations of this matter, and in any subsequent findings, requests, or orders our following concerns: (1) The securing of the construction site and machinery during all phases of the demolition and construction. My brother has three children ages 4 to 8, and many neighborhood children play in our yard. (2) That appropriate measures be taken to minimize the amount of wind blown, and construction related contaminants produced during all phases of the demolition and construction. (3) That as needed, and, at a minimum, upon completion of the construction, appropriate measures be taken to decontaminate the soil and the house from wind blown or other construction related contaminants. (4) That any damage to our property, including cars and landscaping, caused directly, or indirectly, as a result of the demolition and construction be repaired to our satisfaction. (5) That a permanent stockade fence running from the rear corner of the building closest to Highland Avenue to Highland Avenue least 6 feet high, erected and properly maintained on dealership land. That the fence be erected regardless of whether the present building is kept, or a new structure built. This is both a safety and privacy issue. The fence is to keep the children from entering the dealership parking lot. The type and height of the fence is to keep employees or visitors from entering and /or staring into our backyard as has happened. (6) How much and to what intensity will any new parking lot, security or building lights affect our property. (7) Health issues include: how and where exhaust fumes will be vented from the building, and the handling of any hazardous material both during and after construction. (9) How will traffic be affected on Draper Avenue with the new entrance to the new service area. (10) Should a bond be posted to ensure all work is completed and all damages repaired, and if so, in what amount? Thank you for your consideration of these matters, James T. Giblin." The questions were answered by both Mr. Bennett and Mr. Connor. (1) They are hiring a very experienced contractor and they are insured for any damage done. (2) Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 5 of 8 The demolition company will constantly wet the property down. (3) Many years ago they had all the asbestos vacuumed off the rafters so there is no asbestos. (4) If any damage is done, the owner or the demolition company will be responsible. (5) A fence will be constructed. One reason a fence has not be erected is that there is only 3 feet between the lot line and the back of the building. (6) There will be no substantial change in regarding to the lighting. They have added two light packs, 175 watts, on the parking lot side. They might have to add something over the entrance on Draper Ave., but it has not been decided. (7) They are having a professional exhaust system installed. (8) They are taking great strides to take care of environmental problems. In the last few years they have removed oil waste tanks and installed a tank in the dealership which is pumped out. (9) There is already an entrance on Draper Avenue. Mr. Connor feels that there is not a traffic problem. They have twelve bays in which to work on cars; and that is not being increased. (10) Insurance will cover any damages incurred. The hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Flynn to grant a variance to Elizabeth Ryder. Unanimously granted. Reasons: The house was built before the current Zoning By -Laws, not detrimental to the public good; does not increase the non- conformity; and does not derogate from the Zoning By -Laws. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a special permit to Mansfield Jeep -Eagle Chrysler Plymouth. Unanimously granted. Reasons: The application for a special permit does not make the building any more non- conforming than the existing building; the building and business has been in the same location since 1917 and has an excellent reputation; would not derogate from the Zoning By -Law. Condition for permit is a single story building no higher than the existing building peak. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to grant a variance to Liberty Mutual. Granted. 4 -1. In favor: Mr. Wojtkiewicx, Mr. Clemmey, Mr. DeTrolio and Mr. Butler. Opposed: Mr. Flynn. Reasons: Does not derogate from the Zoning By -Law; not detrimental to the public good; and they are entitled to one sign. A motion was made Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Butler to open an Executive Session regarding litigation of CTI- Cryogenics and Helix Corporation. Unanimously approved. (See Attached - Executive Session) Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 6 of 8 The Minutes of September 22, 1992 were unanimously granted. The meeting ended at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary -1SGu Cotton, Clerk Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 7 of 8 EXECUTIVE SESSION RE: CTI -Helix Corporation. Mr. Wojtkiewicz explained that at the last meeting CTI- Helix proposed that they would like the sign on the south side of the building where the temporary banner is located now. The sign is 56 square feet, self illuminating blue; which is the color of their company. The old request was for two signs on the rear of the buildings on #9 and #11 Hampshire Street. They are now requesting one sign for #9 Hampshire Street. If the sign is placed on the front of the building, it can not been seen from the park, that is whey they are requesting to have it on the south side of the building. The purpose of the sign is for corporate identity. Mr. Flynn stated that a variance was requested in the past to connect the two buildings, so it is really one building and only one sign is necessary and the sign is not visible from the highway. Mr. Clemmey stated that he doesn't understand why they want two signs but if they want to put a sign on their building it is not detrimental to the industrial park. Why have an industrial park if you are now allowing signs in the industrial park. Mrs. Cotton stated that she had voted against the variance largely on the fact the way it was presented that night. They were not exactly sure where they wanted to place the sign. They did not discuss corporate identity at all during the presentation. She now has no problem with it. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Lewis to check with Bert Cook the Reservoir Road matter. Various letters were sent to Mr. Cook many months ago. A vote was taken: Those opposed to CTI: Richard Secher Leonard Flynn Those in favor: George Wojtkiewicz Mary-Lou Cotton Karl Clemmey 1 Minutes of October 6, 1992 Page 8 of 8 A discussion followed regarding whether CTI /Helix is one building or two buildings. Mr. Secher wants to see the building himself. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to rescind the original vote and table this matter until the next meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Clemmey to go out of Executive Session.