Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_05181993ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 18, 1993 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: Mary-Lou Cotton, Clerk; Karl Clemmey; Eric Butler; and Richard Secher, Associate Member. Mary-Lou Cotton was appointed Acting Chairman. A motion was made by Karl Clemmey and seconded by Richard Secher to appoint Eric Butler Acting Clerk. It was decided by all four members to vote on the Minutes of April 6, 1993 at the next meeting to be held on June 1, 1993. Mr. Butler read a letter to Mr. David Bielan from Richard Lewis dated April 16, 1993 into the record. This application cannot be processed, and is being returned to you, because it does not meet the requirements contained within the Application Guidelines for Variances. A copy of the guidelines are enclosed and a formal plan stamped by a land surveyor must be submitted with your application. Mr. Butler read a letter to Mr. John Jardin from Bert Cook dated April 22, 1993 into the record. This letter is to notify you that you are in violation of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law Schedule of Principal Use Regulations Section 3.5.1. You are using a part of your dwelling as retail use, specifically a bakery. During our conversations you consistently maintained that your use is agriculture. Attention is brought to Section 3.2 Classification of Extensive Uses, Specifically, 3.2.1 Agricultural which states: "Land for primary use of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture and, if upon more than two acres, a commercial farm for the raising of cattle, horses, sheep, goats, poultry or a farmstand for the sale of farm products." Your land does not supply any product to satisfy the intent of this definition. You are hereby directed to Cease and Desist all operations upon receipt of this letter. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals. However, you must file this appeal within 30 days. Your failure to do so will result in my initiating legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Butler read a letter to Mr. Richard Charbonnier from Bert Cook dated April 20, 1993 into the record. A review of your building permit issued on September 16, 1992 and your request for an occupancy permit has raised the following issues. It appears from the variance that was granted to you by the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 18, 1993 Page 2 of 5 on June 16, 1992 that you have exceeded the size of the deck which was approved from the Zoning Board's plan (Exhibit Q. The proposed deck was approximately 88 square feet. However, the as -built required by this office shows your deck to be approximately 260 square feet. This, of course, is not in conformance with the variance granted by the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals. You are hereby directed to resolve this issue with the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals by seeking an additional variance. Your failure to comply with this request within the next 30 days will unfortunately force me to initiate legal action for violation of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law. Mr. Butler read a memo from the Tax Accountant dated May 10, 1993 into the record. Attached is a copy of your approved F/Y 1994 Operating Budget. Total: $4,700.00. Mrs. Cotton explained to Michael and Winifred Masino, 49 Fruit Street, that they were waiting for a quorum. Mrs. Masino had the choice to either wait until the next meeting schedule for June 1, 1993 or proceed with their application, minus one member of the Board. All four members of the Board would have to give a positive vote in order to obtain the variance. Mrs. Masino decided to wait until the next meeting, June 1, 1993 at 7:45 P.M. Mrs. Cotton asked Mr. and Mrs. Melemed of 5 Morini Street if they understood the quorum situation. They said yes and decided to proceed. The hearing on the application of Barry and Susan Melemed for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws to construct an addition to a non- conforming structure with less than the required lot area, front and side yard setbacks at 5 Morini Street in the R -3 Zone began at 7:50 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a Plan of Land dated March 22, 1993 prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Butler 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 asked Mr. and Mrs. Melemed to explain their hardship. Mrs. Melemed explained that they purchased the house 3 years ago for $130,000. They love the house and the area but they need more room. They would like to add an addition on the back of the house for a master bedroom and a spare room and also add a bathroom with a washer -dryer hookup. Minutes of May 18, 1993 Page 3 of 5 The hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Melemed for a non - conforming structure as it now exists, and to find that the proposed addition, thereto, in no way increases the non - conformity, and is and of itself conforming and, therefore, is allowable as a matter of record. Unanimously granted. Mrs. Cotton asked Mr. Sylva of 105 Union Street if he understood the quorum situation. He said yes and decided to proceed. The hearing on the application of John Sylva for a variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Laws to construct an addition to a non - conforming structure with less than the required front and side yard setbacks at 105 Union Street in the R -3 Zone began at 8:00 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a Plan of Land dated February 1, 1993 prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Butler 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 asked Mr. Sylva to explain his hardship. Mr. Sylva explained he would like to replace his 10' x 12' deck and put a roof over it. He is not increasing the size of the deck, just adding a roof. The hearing closed at 8:05 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a variance to Mr. Sylva. Unanimously granted. Mr. Butler read a portion of the memo from Richard Lewis dated May 12, 1993 into the record regarding Mr. Maragnano. The variance granted addressed the issue of a lot with less than the minimum lot area. The plan submitted as part of the variance application showed a proposed house footprint which meet the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Maragnano wishes to construct a slightly different sized house and deck which still meets all setback requirements. It is my opinion that since the variance only addressed lot size, and all setback requirements will be maintained, it Minutes of May 18, 1993 Page 4 of 5 would be appropriate to send a letter to the Building Inspector stating that any size �- building could be constructed as long as all required setbacks were maintained. Mr. Butler read a letter from Mr. Maragnano dated May 10, 1993 into the record. On October 23, 1992 the Board granted me a variance for my land located at 81 Pratt Street (Pratt and Newton Streets). At the hearing for the variance I stated my intention to build a 34' x 24' Cape on the site. Recently when my house plans were taken to the Building Inspector in order to secure a permit to build the Cape, a restriction was pointed out involving a "box" (36'x30') drawn on the plan of land that was part of the appeal. The Building Inspector interprets the box as being the limit to which development can occur on the site without additional permission being sought from the Board. My understanding from the hearing was that the lot was submit to R -3 zoning limitations only. Would the Board please clarify its intentions when it granted the variance. A motion was made by Mr. Clemmey and seconded by Mr. Butler to send Mr. Cook a letter allowing Mr. Maragnano to build the house as long as all required setbacks are observed. Mr. Butler read a portion of the memo from Richard Lewis dated May 12, 1993 into the record regarding Mr. Charbonnier. Mr. Charbonnier received a variance to construct a non - conforming addition to a non - conforming structure. The plans acted upon by the ZBA included a deck approximately 88 square feet. Following the construction of the addition and deck, the as -built plan revealed that the deck was approximately 248 square feet; Mr. Charbonnier was denied an occupancy permit from the Building Inspector since the work did not conform to what was permitted under the variance. First, Mr. Charbonnier has already constructed the deck, and the size of the deck increased by 300%. Second, Mr. Charbonnier was a variance for a non- conforming addition to a non - conforming structure. While the increased deck size did not create any new non - conformity, it does increase, to a degree, the extent of the non- conforming nature of the structure. I will point out also that the deck which has been constructed exceeds the size of the deck authorized under the Building Permit. I have spoken to the Building Inspector and he does have concerns about the validity to modify the variance in this situation, especially in relationship to how such a modification would be viewed for future sale and possible re- financing. Mr. Butler read a letter from Mr. Charbonnier into the record. Mr. Charbonnier's letter stated that no new non - conformities were being requested; neighbors have expressed the approval and stated that the new deck compliments the home and the style of the deck blends in with the existing decks within the neighborhood; and during the construction phase it became quite apparent that the deck had to be increased when Minutes of May 18, 1993 Page 5 of 5 the door from the addition is in the open position there was not enough room for his ( mother -in -law and someone else standing on the deck. At that time, he sought ideas from family, neighbors and contractors and the new version of the deck was built. He did not realize he was doing anything wrong since there was no new non- conformity. The Board members agreed with Mr. Cook's decision that the new deck does not increase the non - conformity, but Mr. Charbonnier should apply for a finding from the Board. The Board members discussed Attorney Bobowski's memos regarding findings. Mr. Clemmey stated that the Board should take advantage of this information. The memo stated that a finding if there is no increase in the non - conformity; and if an addition increases the non - conformity it is substantially more detrimental. Mr. Clemmey asked that Richard Lewis set up some information about findings such as whether or not it should be the same application as a variance application and if a plot plan should be necessary. Mrs. Cotton suggested putting the finding issue on the agenda for the next meeting, June 1, 1993. The meeting adjourned at 8:45K-M. Respectfully submitted, Eric Butler, Acting Clerk