HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_01171995ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
e (" ' MINUTES
j
„ T January 17, 1995
The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at
7:30 P,M. Present at the hearing were the following members: Eric Butler, Clerk;
Leonard Flynn; Richard Secher; Donald Daniels; Jack Vultaggio, Associate Member.
Eric Butler was appointed Acting Chairman pending reorganization of the ZBA.
Richard Secher was appointed Acting Clerk in place of Eric Butler.
Jack Vultaggio was appointed voting member in place of Peter DeTrolio.
The hearing on the appeal of Carole A. Clemmey on a decision of the Building
Inspector that a fifty-foot buffer, per Section 4.3.2 of the Zoning By -Law, was not
required between a structure located at 10 Reservoir Street and residential structures
owned by the applicant and located at 750 South Main Street. Both properties are in
the I -1 Zone began at 7:30 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit 'B "; a
three -page Addendum with correspondence was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher
read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members present
they voted unanimously to uphold the Building Inspectors interpretation of Section
4.3.2 of the Mansfield Zoning By- Laws."
Mr, Secher read a letter from Carole Clemmey to Bert Cook dated September 13, 1994
into the record. "This is to reiterate what was discussed during our meeting this
morning 9/13/94 at 10:30 A.M. in your office attended by Walt Cruickshank and
myself regarding screening and buffers at the Soccer Bubble. We request written
confirmation that before a permanent occupancy permit is issued to the soccer bubble,
that will be made to comply with Zoning By -Laws, 4.3.2, Screening and Buffers."
Mr. Secher read a letter from Bert Cook to Carole Clem ncy dated September 21, 1994
into the record. "This is in response to your letter of September 13, 1994 regarding
Screenings and Buffer of the By -Law. I would like to clear up the misunderstandings
as far as Section 4.3 and all pertinent subsections and Section 4.2.2, specifically note 3.
On October 4, 1993 I send Paul Folkman an interpretation on the above two sections
after discussion with Town Counsel. I stand by that interpretation, However you do
have a right to appeal. The appeal form is enclosed."
Attorney Edward T. Patten introduced himself as attorney for Mrs. Carole Clemmey.
He explained that Mrs. Clemmey requested the written opinion of the Building
Inspector that the provisions of Section 4.3.2 of the Town Zoning By -Laws applied to
require a 50 foot vegetated buffer between the Bubble and Mrs. Clemmey's residential
structure. Mr. Cook replied and ruled that no fifty foot buffer was required, and that
the 75 foot building setback of Section 4.2.2, did apply.
Mr. Patten further explained that Section 4.3.1 of the Zoning By -Law imposes certain
Screening and Buffer requirements for the purposes of conserving the peace and
tranquillity of the residents, to prevent unsightly vistas and to insure the purpose of this
By -Law as stated in Section 1, screening and buffers shall be required on all industrial
zoned land wherever the industrial zone abuts any residential zone. Similarly, Section
4.2.2, Note (3) requires a 75 foot side and rear yard setback "when businesses abut
residential. "
Mr. Patten also explained that the Clemmey property has been used as a residence for
over fifty years. The Massachusetts Highway Department imposed a "residential only"
access restriction on the land. While the Mass. Highway has agreed to lift the
restriction, the Federal Highway Administration has refused its consents. Thus, the
Clemmey property is no different, as to use, from any other property in the Town
formally declared "residential" by Town Meeting. If the By -Law requires a 75 foot
physical separation, it must also require screening against noise; the intrusion of
headlights into living and bedrooms; and a constant and unavoidable view of a large
tent like structure in the side and rear yard.
Mrs. Clemmey presented tapes of the loud noise that can be heard from her house at all
times of the day and night.
The hearing closed at 8:10 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Lawrence Ciolfr for a Variance from Section 4.2.2
(' and Section 4.2.2., Note (3) to allow for a retail development on a lot with less than
the required frontage (150 feet where 300 feet is required, and with less than the
required side yard setback (20 feet where 75 feet is required), with the site located at
905 South Main Street in the I -1 Zone began at 8:10 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a
Plan of Land dated December 13, 1994 prepared by Paul J. Pinocchio as Exhibit "C ".
Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6)
members present they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the
application. The Board feels that the application derogates extremely from the intent of
the Zoning By -Laws in the intensity of the proposed use."
Mr. Butler asked Mr. Ciolfl to present his case.
Attorney Larry McCarthy introduced himself and explained that Mrs. Mary DelGrosso
is the owner of the property; Lawrence Ciolfi is the applicant and is trying to purchase
the property which is located on 4.3 acres.
Mr. Alfred McCheney the engineer who developed the plan explained that they would
like to demolish the existing home and build three one -story buildings totaling 25,400
square feet. The buildings would consist of two restaurants and retail stores.
Mr. Flynn asked if any additional property can be purchased to correct this problem
without requiring a variance.
Mr. McCarthy explained that they have tried to purchase additional land but they have
been unable to since one abutter will not sell at an acceptable price and the other is
deceased and his land is being held up.
William Judge and Mary Brooks, abutters from the Mobile Home Park asked some
questions regarding all the traffic; the noise; what type of crowds would be frequenting
these establishments; whether or not there would be liquor licenses issued; and the
overall congestion that would be created. The applicant had no specifics available at
that time to answer these questions.
The hearing closed at 8:30 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Donald Hoppe for a Finding per Sections 3.10.4.B
( and 6.2.2.13 of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the alteration and expansion of a pre-
existing, non - conforming residential structure on a lot with less than the required area
with the lot located at 481 Williams Street in the R -1 Zone began at 8:30 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a
Plan of Land dated December 7, 1994 prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates,
Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". No letter from the Planning Board was available.
Mr. Butler asked Mr. Hoppe to present his case.
Mr. Hoppe explained that he inherited this piece of property and would like to
construct a breezeway and a garage. The property meets all dimensional requirements
except for the lot size. The required lot size is 30,000 square feet and he has only
28,000 square feet. The lot is a pre - existing, non - conforming lot.
The hearing closed at 8:45 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Karen Kelley for a Finding per Sections 3.10.4.B and
6.2.2.D of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the expansion of a pre - existing, non-
conforming residential structure with less than the required front yard setback, located
at 65 Walnut Street in the R -2 Zone began at 8:45 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; a
Plan of Land dated November 23, 1994 prepared by David E. Grant, R.L.S.,
Mansfield, MA, as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board into
the record. "With six (6) members present they voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation on the application."
Mr. Butler asked Mrs. Kelley to present her case.
Mrs. Kelley explained that she received a Finding for this addition to her home in June,
1994. The deck was omitted by accident from the Plans and when the as -built was
presented this problem came up. The addition and deck have already been built and
she needs a finding for this deck.
The hearing closed at 8:50 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Flynn to grant a Finding to
Mrs. Kelley. Unanimously granted. (Butler, Flynn, Secher, Vultaggio, Daniels).
Does not increase non - conformity.
A motion Was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a Finding to
Mr. Hoppe. Unanimously granted. (Butler, Flynn, Secher, Vultaggio, Daniels).
Does not increase the non- conformity and will improve the area.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to deny a variance to
Mr. Ciolft. Unanimously denied. (Butler, Flynn, Secher, Vultaggio, Daniels). Did
not demonstrate hardship; there is land available to buy; could build smaller buildings;
and derogated from the Zoning By -Laws.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to uphold the Decision
of the Building Inspector. Unanimously Upheld. (Butler, Flynn, Secher, Vultaggio,
Daniels). The Building Inspector's decision conformed to every aspect of the By -Law.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Vultaggio to change the
procedure for all applicants to be responsible for the creation of the abutter lists and to
have the lists certified by the Town Assessors. Dick Lewis explained that this is how
all the other Boards operate and this will eliminate any problems such as the Grace
Baptist Church where they took the applicant to Court because they will not officially
notified of a hearing in which they were direct abutters.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
qfully sub
Secher,
Acting Clerk