HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_03161993ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES 93 APR -7 Fd 3: V
March 16, 1993 1 S S C; U; I f S
The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at
7:40 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: George Wojtkiewicz,
Chairman, Mary -Lou Cotton, Clerk; Leonard Flynn; Eric Butler; Richard Secher,
Associate Member; Peter DeTrolio, Associate Member; and Richard Lewis, Zoning
Board of Appeals Advisor.
The hearing on the application of Philip J. Beatty for a variance from Section 4,
Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws to create a house lot with less than the required
minimum lot frontage at 24 Shiloh Drive in then -1 Zone began at 7 :40 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and
a Plan of Land dated October 28, 1992 prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates,
Inc., Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mrs. Cotton read a letter from the Planning
Board into the record. With four (4) members present they voted two (2) in favor with
two (2) abstentions to send a negative recommendation on the application.
Mr. DeTrolio was appointed voting member in place of Mr. Clemmey.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Mr. Beatty to explain his hardship.
Mr. Beatty explained that he would like to create a new house lot for a single family
home. The home would be for his mother who lost her home during the hurricane in
Florida. The variance is for zero feet of frontage on Shiloh Drive but he will have 200
feet of frontage on a private driveway off of Shiloh Drive. The purpose of placing the
house lot in this location is to stay away from the wetlands. Mr. Beatty further
explained that this eight acre piece of property was originally owned by his parents.
There is a subdivision directly behind him and the closest house on either side of him is
approximately 400 -500 feet.
Various abutters were present and had negative recommendations for this variance
request:
Minutes of March 16, 1993
Page 2 of 3
Brian Dolersar of 9 Shiloh Drive stated that if this variance is granted it will set a
precedence for no frontage for the next person that applies for a variance with no
frontage.
Theresa Kirejczyk of 10 Shiloh Drive stated that Mr. Beatty's mother owns a home on
Essex Street.
Robert Buehler of 19 Shiloh Drive was concerned with the additional cars and traffic
on the street.
Steven Manson of 15 Shiloh Drive stated that the rules need to be enforced.
Helen Kobey of 6 Shiloh Drive stated that the laws are to protect the people and she
moved to Shiloh Drive to have a nice quiet street.
Vasilia Barker stated that Mr. Beatty's house was for sale last year and she feels the
Board should know this.
The hearing closed at 8:05 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Motel 6, O.L.P., for a variance from Section 4.7.2.2
of the Zoning By -Laws for the installation of a wall sign on the rear of the building
located at 60 Forbes Boulevard in the I -1 Zone began at 8:05 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a
Plan of Land dated December 17, 1992 and revised on February 5, 1993 prepared by
Norwood Engineering Co., Inc., Norwood, MA, as Exhibit "C "; a Rendition of the
proposed Sign dated December 14, 1992, as Exhibit "D"; and several hand drawn
sketches showing the location of the proposed sign on the rear of the building as seen
from Rt. 140, as Exhibit "E ". 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 application.
Mr. Secher was appointed voting member in place of Mr. Clemmey.
Mr. Wojtkiewicz asked Motel 6 representatives to explain their hardship.
Attorney Paul Lorincz of Attleboro, MA introduced himself and Mr. Tab Sims, the On
Premises Manager, and Mr. John Boletta, the Area Manager.
Minutes of March 16, 1993
Page 3 of 3
Mr. Lorincz explained that the Building Inspector ruled that a wall sign may not be
placed on the rear wall facing Rt. 140, but only on the front wall. Due to the unique
( circumstances of lot shape and frontage on both Rt. 140 and Forbes Boulevard, the
applicant seeks a variance to install a 8'x12' wall sign on the rear of the building facing
Rt. 140. The hotel is 201 feet long which entitles them to a 603 square foot sign. All
they are requesting is a 96 sq. foot sign (8'x12') on the rear of the building. The sign
will be translucent, non - glare, non - moving and non blinking. Mr. Lorincz further
stated that the hardship is that the bulk of their traffic is coming from Rt. 140 and the
majority of their business is from people seeing the sign. Their sign needs to be visible
to attract business. Also, this hotel will bring to the Town of Mansfield approximately
$60,000 in property taxes and 4 %of room revenues. The sign will not be visible to
anyone except to traffic; there is no sign on the front of the building; the sign has very
modest dimensions; they do not feel it derogates from the public good; and does not
derogate from the Zoning By -Laws.
The hearing closed at 8:20 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mrs. Cotton to deny a variance to
Mr. Beatty. Unanimously denied. Reasons: No frontage; will set a precedent;
strongly derogates from the Zoning By -Law; and creates a public safety hazard with
access to two homes from one driveway.
A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a variance to
Motel 6, O.L.P. Unanimously granted. Reasons: It is in the public interest; it clearly
demonstrates a need for the sign on the side on the building to attract customers; the
sign is much smaller than is required; and it is a retail business and needs the sign to
attract business.
The application of David Anacone, 161 Balcom, tabled from March 2, 1993 was
discussed. The radius for the driveway was presented. There is no problem with being
able to enter the garage. A motion was made by Mrs. Cotton and seconded by Mr.
Butler to grant a variance to David Anacone. Unanimously granted. Reason: They
will not be encroaching on anyone.
The Minutes of March 2, 1993 were unanimously approved.
The meeting closed at 8 :30 P.M.
Respectfully sub itted,
Mary-Lo Cotton, Clerk