HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_07181995MINUTES
JULY 18, 1995
The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at 7:45 P.M.
Present at the hearing were the following members: Eric Butler, Chairman; Peter DeTrolio;
Richard Secher; and Duane Frederick, Associate Member.
Richard Secher was appointed Acting Clerk in place of Leonard Flynn for this meeting.
Duane Frederick was appointed voting member in place of Leonard Flynn for this meeting.
Eric Butler explained the quorum situation to the applicants.
Walter Day decided to proceed with his application.
The hearing on the application of Walter Day for a Finding per Sections 3.10.4.B and 6.2.2.1) of
the Zoning By -Law to allow for the construction of an addition to a pre - existing, non - conforming
two - family structure located at 9 & 11 Allen Street in the R -3 Zone began at 7:45 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of
Land dated May 21, 1976 prepared by Hayward- Boynton & Williams, Inc., Taunton, MA, was
labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With
five (5) members present, they voted three (3) in favor with two (2) opposed to send a negative
recommendation on this application."
Mr. Butler asked Mr. Day to present his case.
Mr. Day explained that he would like to add a 121x24' addition to make the house a 3- bedroom
and make the property more attractive to owner occupancy because he plans to sell the house.
The house is two -story but the addition will be a one -story.
The hearing closed at 7:45 P.M.
Minutes of July 18, 1995
Page 2 of 6
Eric Butler explained the quorum situation to the applicants.
Attorney Garrett H. Spillane, Jr., who is representing Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of
America, Inc., Trustee decided to seek a continuance until the next meeting on August 15, 1995.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Frederick to continue this hearing.
This hearing should be scheduled for 1/2 hour. An abutter requested 15 minutes to speak at the
hearing on August 15.
Mr. Butler read a memo dated July 18, 1995 from Richard Lewis regarding the Request for
Extension of Time by Clemmey. "I would recommend that the Board inform the Clemmey's that
there is no expiration date for their finding. A copy should also be sent to the Building
Inspector." A motion was made by Mr. Frederick and seconded by Mr. 6eTrolio to send a letter
to the Building Inspector and the applicant regarding the 2 -year limit. Unanimously approved.
Eric Butler explained the quorum situation to the applicants.
Attorney Edward Valanzola, who is representing the applicant decided to proceed with this
application.
The hearing on the application of Edward Coneeny for a Variance from Section 1.5.17a for
insufficient lot width for a proposed single family house lot located at Lot LS4, Casa Drive in the
R -2 Zone began at 8:00 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of
Land dated March 21, 1994 and revised on May 25, 1995 prepared by Rim Engineering Co., Inc.,
Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board
into the record. "With six (6) members present, they voted to send a negative recommendation
on this application. It is of the opinion of the Board that using thin slivers of land in order to
make up lot area is inconsistent with the Zoning By -Law and is in direct contradiction to the
reason for establishment of the lot width definition. The board is also concerned about the
potential negative impact on the neighborhood of increasing density by creating buildable lots out
of currently unbuildable lots."
Mr. Butler asked Mr. Valanzola to present his case.
Attorney Valanzola explained that he is representing the applicant, Edward Coneeny. The
applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 4 as located on the Plan of Land
prepared by Rim Engineering ( "Exhibit C"). Lot LS -4, Casa Drive is comprised of the remainder
of a portion of two parcels which were taken by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works
under two orders of taking dated October 4, 1978 and April 16, 1980. The takings were for
highway purposes, namely the construction of Route 140. Lot 4 is no longer needed for highway
purposes and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, desires to sell Lot 4 to Mr. Coneeny. One of
the which make up Lot 4 was originally a part of the Casa Drive Subdivision which was
developed approximately 15 years ago. Prior to the taking by the state, this lot complied with all,
respects to the Zoning By -Law. In May of 1989, lot width was changed to require a width equal
to frontage measured at a 90 degree angle +/ -20 degrees. Prior to that date Lot 4 complied in all
respects to the zoning by -laws. Lot 4, which is in the R -2 zone and will be tied into existing
sewage on Casa Drive, meets the frontage requirement (150% front and side yard setbacks as well
as lot area (20,000). Prior to the taking by the State, the subject property was part of the Casa
Drive Subdivision and had single family homes which were removed by the State. This condition
is unique in that it was created by a taking by State for highway proposes.
An abutter, Eric Swede, has lived there for 8 years and was against the building of these two
homes. -
An abutter, Mr. Regan, stated that everyone has been told that these were unbuildable lots.
An abutter, Mr. Healy, was given a variance in 1979 for an in -law apartment which was only three
(3) feet from these lots and at the time he was granted a variance he was told by the ZBA that
these were unbuildable lots.
Attorney Valanzola explained that he has heard no reasons why this has a negative impact
An abutter, Karl Clemmey, requested time to speak and was asked to wait a few moments until
the second part of this hearing was opened.
The hearing on the application of Edward Coneeny for a Variance from Section 1.5.17a for
insufficient lot width for a proposed single family house lot located at Lot LS5, Casa Drive in the
R -2 Zone began at 8:30 P.M.
he application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of
Land dated March 21, 1994 and revised on May 25, 1995 prepared by Rim Engineering Co., Inc.,
Mansfield, MA was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board,
Minutes of July 18, 1995
Page 4 of 6
6 members present, they voted to send a negative recommendation
(, into the record. ,With six O opinion of the Board that using thin slivers of land in order to
into
this application. It is of the op B Law and is in direct contradiction to the
make up lot area is inconsistent with the zoning Y buildable lots out
e nei hborhood of increasing density by creating
reason for establishment of thhlot gidth definition. The board is also concerned about e
potential negative impact on t
of currently unbuildable lots." licant, Edward Coneeny. The
Attorney Valanzola explained that he is representing the app
dwelling on Lot 5 as located on the Plan of Land
Lot LS -5, Casa Drive is comprised of the remainder
applicant proposes to construct a single family
prepared by Rim Engineering ( "Ebit C ).
arcels which were taken by the Massachusetts Department of Public oWorks
Of a portion of two p 1978 and April 16, 1980. The taking
under two orders of taking dated October 4,
Coneeny. One of
highway purposes, namely the
construction ach Route aesOires to sell Lot 15 to Mreed h for highway
purposes and the Commonwealth of Ma lied with all
Lot 5 was originally a part of the Casa Drive he state, lot clomp
the which makeup ears ago. Prior to the taking by
developed appro�ately 15 y of 1989, lot width was changed to require a width equal
B Law. In May degrees. Prior to that date Lot 5 complied in all
respects to the Zoning Y- degree angle +/ -20 deg
to frontage measured at a 90 deg
respects to the zoning Y ' front and side yard setbacks as well
by-laws, Lot 4, which is in the R -2 zone and will be tied into e�ustmg
requirement (150 ), was part of the Casa
( sewage on Casa Drive, meets the frontage the State, the subject Property he State. This condition
as lot area (20,000). Prior to the taking Y
a taking by State for highway proposes.
Drive Subdivision wa created by family homes which were removed y
is unique in that
Mr. ClemmeY Presented the Board with a letter with seven reasons why these are unbuildable lots.
(1) There is no hardship
reasons for hardship); created their own hardship when
(2) When the Commonwealth took the houses in 1978, they
they made them non - builable lots;
(3) They are not protected under subdivision control laws as this development is over year
old. B Law ].5.17a, these lots cannot meet this requirement;
(4) According to zoning Y"
(5) Cannot meet side and rear setbacks;
(6) Cannot meet the wetland Protection requirement; and Per lot-" e
re there was continuous ownership by one individual, these lots now square feet P the new
(7) Whe which required 150' frontage and 20,000 sq
zoning, passed at town meeting
Mr. Valanzola stated that his client has a right to purchase this land.
Minutes of July 18, 1995
Page 5 of 6
An abutter, Kim Foley, asked how can they build if they do not have enough width.
Mr. Valanzola asked that the Board consider two separate applications.
The hearing closed at 8:45 P.M.
Eric Butler explained the quorum situation to the applicants.
The hearing on the application of John Alleruzzo for a Variance from Section 4, Schedule 4.2.1
for insufficient sideyard setback for a proposed addition to an existing single - family house lot
located at 484 Fruit Street in the R -1 Zone began at 9:00 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A''; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B"; and a Plan of
Land dated May 22, 1995 prepared by Dunn McKenzie, Inc., Foxborough, MA, was labeled as
Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6)
members present they voted to send a negative recommendation on the application. It is the
opinion of the Board that although the proposed addition would encroach into the sideyard
setback less than 4.5 feet, the applicant could reduce the width of the proposed addition and
conform with the Zoning By- Law. -
Mr. Aneruzzo explained that he would like to add a garage to the side of his home. Due to the
protrusion of the chimney and in order to maintain the existing second exit from the house to the
exterior, the garage will be placed three feet from the edge of the existing bathroom protrusion.
This required the standard garage width of 24 feet to be 27 feet. Mr. Alleruzzo also stated that he
feels that the variance would not cause a detriment to the public good. The right hand side yard
setback would be reduced 4.28 feet to be 20.72 feet instead of the required 25 feet.
The hearing closed at 9:10 P.M.
Eric Butler explained the quorum situation to the applicants.
The hearing on the application of Lawrence Carpenter for a Finding per Sections 3.10.4.11 and
6.2.2.D to allow for the alteration of apre- existing, non - conforming residential structure which
e R -2 Zone began
will decrease the non - conformity of the structure, located at 26 Glen Street in th
at 9:10 P.M.
The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan of
Land dated May 25, 1995 prepared by Tilton & Associates, Inc., North Attleboro, MA, was
Minutes of July 18, 1995
Page 6 of 6
labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Secher read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With
six (6) members presented they voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation."
Mr. Carpenter explained that he would like to have the house remain as a single family residence,
rebuild the garage, and put an additional floor over the garage for future living space. He also
plans to rebuild the entry and dining area.
The hearing closed at 9:15 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Frederick to accept the Minutes of June
20, 1995. Unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Mr. DeTrolio and seconded by Mr. Secher to grant a finding to Mr. Day.
Is this an increase in the non - conformity? Unanimously granted. Butler, DeTrolio, Secher, and
Frederick. Reason: Does not constitute an increase in the non - conformity.
A motion was made by Mr. DeTrolio and seconded by Mr. Secher to approve a variance to
Edward Coneeny (Casa Drive -Lot 4). Unanimously Denied. Butler, DeTrolio, Secher and
Frederick. The creation of these lots substantially derogates from the intent of the Zoning
By -Law; No hardship was stated; and the Planning Board tried very hard to not have lots like this.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Frederick to approve a variance to
Edward Coneeny (Casa Drive -Lot 5). Unanimously Denied. Butler, DeTrolio, Secher and
Frederick. The creation of these lots substantially derogates from the intent of the Zoning
By -Law; No hardship was stated; and the Planning Board tried very hard to not have lots like this.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to grant a variance to John
Alleruzzo. Unanimously approved. Butler, Secher, DeTrolio and Frederick. There is no
negative impact.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Frederick to grant a finding to Lawrence
Carpenter. Unanimously granted. Butler, Secher, DeTrolio and Frederick.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
espect lly submitt d
ich rd Secher,
Acting Clerk