Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_10201992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 20, 1992 9? fkmv 19 w, 011 4 iTS 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 Dr. John Cares Walton for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws to allow for two lots with less than the required minimum lot area; Lot A is proposed to have 13,500 square feet and Lot B is proposed to have 10,000 square feet, where 20,000 square feet is the required minimum lot area in the R -2 Zone began at 7:35 P.M. The applicant proposed to construct a single family residence on Lot B. The property is located at 29 Henry Street. Mr. Secher was appointed a voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Clemmey. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of Land dated June 5, 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 negative recommendation on the application. The application strongly derogates from the intent of the By -Law as it applies to residential density, and the proposed lots sizes are only approximately one -half of the required minimum lot size in the R -2 zone therefore creation of two non - conforming lots would in effect double the density permitted by the By -Law in the neighborhood. Mr. Wojtkiewicz read a letter from petitioner into the record. The letter explained that the subject property was purchased in 1978 by the late Dorothy Wetherall. It is adjacent to property purchased by her family in 1931. The land was purchased for purposes of development and was not known that the land did not conform to applicable zoning. The land was purchased to build a single family home that could be sold to provide a retirement income. The petitioner, Dr. Walton, contends that it would be a hardship if he is not permitted to follow through with the original intention to develop the property which only has value if it is buildable. Minutes of October 20, 1992 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Dr. Walton to explain his hardship. Attorney William Linehan introduced himself and explained that the property results from a division that occurred in 1906 from the Northern Land Company. Ms. Wetheratt's father purchased land in 1931 and shortly thereafter he purchased two more lots. When he passed away, Ms. Wetherall inherited this land and in 1978 Ms. Wetherall and Dr. Walton purchased two additional lots. The intention of this land was to build a house and sell it for retirement income. Mr. Linehan also stated that there are 9 lots in this neighborhood and 5 of the lots are of the same size or smaller. The two houses on either side have 15 foot sideyard setbacks so there would be a 30 foot separation between the two houses. An abutter, Winifred Thompson, 21 Henry Street, presented a petition in opposition to the Board. Mrs. Cotton read the petition into the record. We the undersigned are opposed to the granting of this variance for the following reasons: 1) Water problems will be increased by further construction in this area and the value of the property will go down; 2) We fail to see how crowding one more house in this area will benefit anyone; and 3) We fail to see where there is any hardship or emergency condition. Signed by Winifred and Kenneth Thompson, 21 Henry Street; Susan and David Salomaa, 42 Alden Street; Jeannine and Fred Lemire, Alden Street; Dan Edorin, Alden Street; and Marion and Glenn Scialdone, Henry Street. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Linehan to explain the hardship. The hardship is a financial hardship in the sense that the land was purchased for retirement purposes. The property is not adding anything to the value of the existing home since it is a large lot and is hard for Dr. Walton to maintain. An abutter, Susan Saloma, 42 Alden Street, who is against the variance, stated that a few years ago she offered to purchase the property from the applicant but they did not want to sell. Mr. Linehan explained that the land was not for sale at that time. The applicant was planning on building a house and then selling it for retirement income. An abutter, Eileen Flynn, 29 Alden Street, who is in favor of the variance stated that she would like to see a house built on the lot. The lot is now being used as a dumping ground and cars are parked there at night. An abutter, Ken Thompson, who is opposed to the variance, feels that he has no privacy. If another house is built, it will only make matters worse. Minutes of October 20, 1992 Page 3 of 5 The hearing closed at 8:05. A motion to grant was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Butler. Mr. Flynn stated that creating two substandard lots derogates from the intent of the Zoning By- Laws. Mrs. Cotton stated that the building of another house seriously impacts the residential density; and derogates from the intent of the Zoning By -Law. Unanimously denied. The hardship is self- imposed. Mansfield Jeep Eagle Chrysler Plymouth. Mr. Cook had second thoughts and would not issue a building permit if a special permit was granted because of the demolition that is to be done on the building. He will only issue a building permit if a variance is granted. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Butler to reconsider. Mrs. Cotton stated that a variance should be granted, instead of a special permit, because a special permit would not allow the applicant to carry out what he intended to do. Mr. Flynn stated that the company has been there since 1913. The applicant has applied for an improvement to the building and the neighborhood. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to grant a variance with conditions, instead of a special permit, to Jeep Eagle, was unanimously granted. The hardship is that the business has been in existence since 1913; the shape and size of the building will be the same; they are building on the same footprint, and they are not creating any more of a deviation problem with pre - existing non - conforming use that already exists. If the applicant is not allowed the variance, that would create a hardship. Mr. Giblin, 18 Draper Avenue, an abutter to the Jeep Eagle Chrysler Plymouth dealership, raised his concerns over the construction and demolition; and also the issue of having the fence erected behind the Jeep dealership and his property. Minutes of October 20, 1992 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Connor stated that he has spoken with the neighbors, explained what he is planning to do with the dealership, and has already promised the abutters that a fence will be erected. It was discussed that it is up to the applicant, not the Board, to let the applicant and the abutters settle the fence situation themselves. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that a decision was made at the last meeting on this matter. No one is influencing the board either one way or the other. A decision was made to act on this matter as a variance, which is how it was advertised. The Board has acted on this matter and the hearing is closed. , Mr. Clemmey asked that it be noted in the minutes that he left the room on both Jeep Eagle and Dr. John Carns Walton matters. A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr. Secher to go into Executive Session to discussed a matter that is in litigation. The Minutes of October 6, 1992 were unanimously granted. A discussion advertising fees followed. Dick Lewis explained that the Board's advertising fees are almost exhausted. The Board increased the fee to $165.00 which was to cover the advertising costs. The problem is that the whole $165.00 is being placed in one account and not being credited to our advertising expenses. One solution is to collect two separate checks; one when the application is submitted and the other at the time of the hearing when the advertising fee amount is known. Another option is to have an emergency transer to cover the advertising for the rest of the year or lower the fee and change the guidelines. It was decided to lower the fee to $150.00 and have Dick Lewis request a transfer of the advertising fees. The hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary-Lou Cotton, Clerk Minutes of October 20, 1992 Page 5 of 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION In matter of CTI -Helix Corporation; Mr. Secher had wanted to see the building in person to made a final decision. Mr. Secher stated that it is one building, not two, and the law says that each building is entitled to one sign. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that the purpose of the sign by -law is to regulate the blatant misuse of where and how many signs are on buildings. Most signs have worked out very well. Helix wants to put a relatively small sign on their building which can be seen from West Street only if you are looking for it. and he does not see how this can harm the public good in any way. Mr. Flynn stated that it is going to set a precedent. These signs serve no purpose unless it is a retail business or attracting tourists or travelers. It is a high technology company that is attracting a small group of people. A vote was taken: In favor: Mr. Wojtkiewicz Mrs. Cotton Mr. Clemmey Opposed: Mr. Secher Mr. Flynn Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Dick Lewis to talk to town counsel and have a letter drafted to CTI -Helix to explained what was decided by the Board. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Clemmey to go out of Executive Session