Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_11171992ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 17, 1992 -1_t7 92 DEC/ 6 P1, I S9 :71S 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 Ciro Brancaccio for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws for an existing non - conforming structure at 15 Echo Hills Drive with less than the required minimum sideyard setback in the R -1 Zone began at 7:35 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of Land dated October 14, 1992, prepared by DMG Engineering Co., Inc., of Middleboro, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. With four (5) members present they voted four (4) in favor with one (1) abstention to send a positive recommendation on the application. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Brancaccio to explain his hardship. Mr. Brancaccio explained that the house is six (6) inches too close to the sideyard setback. The electrical company moved the cement boundaries to put the electrical transformers in the house. The boundaries were put back wrong and'when the engineers took the measurements they were off on one side by six inches. The engineers discovered the problem when they did the plans. The house is now occupied and has a temporary occupancy permit. The new owners cannot obtain a mortgage until the problem is solved and a variance is obtained. The hearing closed at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Dick Lewis to explain the Jeep Eagle /Paul Connor situation. Mr. Lewis explained that a few weeks ago the Board signed a variance in favor of the Jeep Eagle dealership. The Building Inspector, Mr. Cook, feels that another requirement, screening and buffers, of Section 4.3 was not met. Mr. Cook's interpretation is that the variance has to conform to all sections of the By -Laws or a Minutes of November 17, 1992 Page 2 of 4 permit will not be granted. Mr. Cook told Mr. Connor to refile with the Board to obtain a variance from Section 4.3. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Cook discussed this further, and it appears that Bert's interpretation is to either conform or obtain a variance. Mr. Flynn stated that he had a problem with this situation and feels this is very unfair. The applicant came in good faith. He went through the review process, got a special permit; went through the review process, a second time, and got a variance. This should not take three tries. Mr. Flynn also stated that the Building Inspector receives copies of each application as does the Planning Board. The Planning Board, after reviewing the case, never mentioned in the recommendation letter a site plan. Mr. Lewis suggested that everyone should see Bert Cook before they apply for a variance. Mr. Flynn asked what purpose would be served by making the applicant go through the process again. Mr. Flynn made a motion that the Board adhere to the decision and send a letter to the Building Inspector stating that the ZBA, Building Department and Planning Department reviewed the application and had more than adequate time to make comments as to any deficiencies in the application. Mr. Flynn stated that no issues were raised; the Board voted; a variance was granted and the Board feels that the decision should stand. Mr. Wojtkiewicz made a motion to table this matter until after the next hearing. The hearing on the application of John O'Connell for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws to construct a non - conforming addition to two existing non - conforming structures (house and detached garage) at 1 Dean Street with less than the required front, rear and sideyard setbacks. The Lot has less than the required minimum lot area and lot frontage on Dean Street in the R -3 Zone began at 8:00 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of Land dated October 14, 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 (5) members present they voted four (4) in favor with one (1) abstention to send a negative recommendation on the application. The application strongly derogates because the existing non - conformity of the garage is being increased. The Planning Board suggested that the applicant consider decreasing the side of the deck in order to provide for a detached garage rather than attaching the deck to the existing garage because of the significant difference in required setbacks for attached and detached garages. Minutes of November 17, 1992 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. and Mrs. O'Connell to explain his hardship. Mr. O'Connell explained that they have outgrown their existing house. The house is very small. The living room is so small they do not have room for a sofa. They would like to combine the small living room and dining room and make one large living room; and enlarge the kitchen to have a table. They also need a screened porch, to be attached to the kitchen, because Mr. O'Connell is seriously allergic to bee stings and cannot risk sitting outside. Mr. Flynn explained to the O'Connells that if the deck is not attached to the garage the requirements are less, which is what the Planning Board has recommended. Abutters, Mr. and Mrs. Chamberlain of Milton, MA, had no objections. The size of the deck was discussed. Mrs. O'Connell stated she only wants a small walkway, not a large deck as proposed in the plans. The Board decided that the plan as presented does not adequately describe what the applicant is asking for. The Planning Board objected to making this one continuous building. The O'Connells do not want a large deck, so they should eliminate the large deck, make it a small walkway, so it is not one continuous structure. The Board suggested that the O'Connells have a revised set of plans done by the engineer with elevation marks on the new plans. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Clemmey to continue this matter until the December 1, 1992 meeting at 8:00 P.M.. The hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. The minutes of October 20, 1992 were unanimously approved with one (1) abstention, from Mr. Clemmey, who had abstained from the Jeep Eagle Chrysler Plymouth hearing. A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Ciro Brancaccio. Unanimously granted. Reasons: it was an honest mistake; does not derogate from the intent of the Zoning By -Law; not detrimental to the public good. Mr. Clemmey left the room when the Jeep Eagle matter was discussed. Mr. Wojtkiewicz opened the discussion on Jeep Eagle. Mr. Flynn reinstated his motion to send a letter to Mr. Cook, the Building Inspector. He stated that it is unreasonable and serves no public good whatsoever to put the applicant through the Minutes of November 17, 1992 Page 4 of 4 process again. The Board did discuss buffers with the applicant and the applicant is discussing putting up a fence with his abutters. Mr. Wojtkiewicz stated that the Board can write a letter but they cannot do anything beyond their authority. Mr. DeTrolio suggested having Mr. Connor sit down with Mr. Cook to discuss the site plan review. Mr. Lewis stated that under Chapter 40A there are only two (2) ways for grounds for an applicant to obtain a variance; no permit necessary at the present time; or a denial from the Building Department. This is stated in the By -Law on pages 77 -78. Mr. Lewis should work on the letter to Mr. Cook and if Mr. Cook does not agree, have Mr. Connor resubmit an application. Mr. Lewis distributed copies of a case from the Law Use Manager and also a copy of a proposed budget. The hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary-Lou Cotton, Clerk