Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_05071996ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES I�TIS MAY 7, 1996 The Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA, at 1:30 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: Richard Secher, Chairman; Donald Daniels, Clerk; Eric Butler; Leonard Flynn; Peter DeTrolio; Duane Frederick, Associate Member; Jack Vultaggio, Associate Member. The hearing on the application of Warren Chapman for a Finding, per Sections 3.10.4.13 and 6.2.2.1) of the Zoning By -Law, to allow for the alteration of a pre- existing, non - conforming residential structure located at 14 Bliss Avenue, in the R -2 Zone began at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Butler was appointed Acting Clerk (in place of Mr. Daniels). Mr. Frederick was appointed Voting Member (in place of Mr. Daniels). The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B"; and a Mortgage Plot Plan of Land dated June 2, 1978 prepared by Hayward- Boynton & Williams, Inc., Surveyors- Engineers, Taunton, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Butler 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. It is the opinion of the Board that the proposed addition does not increase the pre- existing non - conformity." Mr. Secher asked Mrs. Chapman to present her case. Mrs. Chapman explained that she would like to add a two -story addition on to her house. The addition would consist of a first floor dining room and a second floor bedroom. The hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Daniels and Mr. Vultaggio arrived a few minutes late for the meeting. Minutes of May 7, 1996 Page 2 of 5 The hearing on the application of William Harvey for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law, to allow for a lot, located at 15 Heather Lane, with less than the lot area required for the R -1 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A'; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Certified Plot Plan of Land dated March 29, 1996 prepared by Rim Engineering Company, Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Daniels 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. Secher asked Mrs. Harvey to present her case. Mrs. Boucher, an abutter and realtor, spoke on behalf of Mrs. Harvey. When the subdivision plans were done for Heather Lane there was an error and this error has created a non - conforming lot with less than the 30,000 square feet that is required. The Harveys are unable to sell their home because this has created a title problem and they are requested a variance for a lot with less than the required lot area. The hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to grant a finding to Mr. and Mrs. Chapman. Passed 4 -0 Butler, DeTrolio, Secher, Frederick. Reason: Does not create an increase in the non - conformity. A motion was made by Mr. Daniels and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Harvey. Unanimously granted. Secher, Butler, DeTrolio, Daniels and Vultaggio. Mr. Flynn arrived late for the meeting. The hearing on the Appeal, per Section 6.2.2.A of the Zoning By -Law, by Arthur Remillard of a Decision of the Planning Board relative to the use and parking requirements, per Section 4.4.1 of the By -Law for the proposed Town Hall complex in the Park Row School and Memorial Hall buildings, located on Park Street in the R -3 Zone began at 8:00 P.M. The hearing on the Appeal, per Section 6.2.2.A of the Zoning By -Law, by Arthur Remillard of a Decision of the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for the proposed Town Hall complex in the Park Row and Memorial Hall Buildings, and located on Park Street in the R -3 Zone began at 8:01 P.M. Minutes of May 7, 1996 Page 3 of 5 Attorney Sean Spillane, attorney for Arthur Remillard, stated his case first. Mr. Spillane explained his grounds: (1) The Mansfield Planning Board exceeded its authority and incorrectly interpreted Section 4.4.1 of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law by determining that the proposed Town Hall is not included in the parking requirement schedule under said section. In its decision, the Planning Board found that a Town Hall is a municipal use which is not included in the schedule within Section 4.4.1. Mr. Spillane feels the decision is incorrect since the Town Hall is simply an office building and therefore included in the parking schedule. (2) Even if the Town Hall does not come under the office use parking requirements, 74 off - street parking spaces is inadequate for the proposed Park Row Municipal Project. The applicant requests that the Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals vacate the February 6, 1996 decision of the Mansfield Planning Board and find that with regard to the Park Row Memorial Hall Project, the Town must comply with the requirements for an office use under Section 4. 1.1 of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law. Mr. Spillane further explained that the grounds for this second appeal regarding the Building Inspector is that the project site does not contain the required number of parking spaces under the Mansfield By -Law and therefore, a permit should not have been issued. Attorney Mark Bobrowski, representing the Mansfield Planning Board stated: (1) The Board of Appeals is without authority to review the Planning Board's findings with regard to off - street parking requirements pursuant to Section 4.4.1 of the Zoning By -Law. "An appeal to the permit granting authority ... may be taken ... by any person... aggrieved by an order or decision of the inspector of buildings, or other administrative official, in violation of any provision of this chapter or any ordinance or by -law adopted therefore; (2) The Board of Appeals is without authority to review the Planning BOard's findings with regard to off - street parking requirements because Mr. Remillard does not have standing to contest the decision, and in order to demonstrate standing, the petitioner "must establish - by direct facts and not by speculative personal opinion -that his injury is special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community." Attorney Robert Mangiaratti, representing the Town Manager stated that the Planning Board has the authority under Section 4.4.1 of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law to make the requested determination. In the schedule of principal use regulations of the By -law, it expressly allows a municipal use in all districts. However, in the off street parking schedule, there is no correspond- ing municipal use listed. The proposed town hall is a unique use not covered by any other uses listed in the off street parking schedule. Consequently, the Planning Board has authority to determine the off street parking required. There are several site specific factors which should be considered by the Planning Board in its decision: (1) number of employees at the site; (2) patterns of use by the public; (3) available and convenient on street parking; (4) zoning Minutes of May 7, 1996 Page 4 of 5 regulations in nearby communities which specifically address municipal uses; and (5) the availability of parking at the site of the current town hall. The question of whether the Town Hall is an office building or a municipal building was discussed with different opinions from everyone. Al Turinese stated that the town went through alot to get this far, why didn't they get exempt from the parking problem. Nancy Wall, 31 West Street, has no problem with the parking situation. Rose Boliski explained that a traffic study was put together for Webb Place and that was turned down and Mr. Morse on South Main Street was denied a variance over one parking space. Ed Calhoun, 38 Union Street, said they should take 1(2 the South Common and use it as a parking lot. William Bruno said that the same rules should be followed for private citizens. Richard Simmons, VHB Engineering, Watertown, MA, explained that no traffic study was done, all the information they presented was taken from a manual and compared with North Attleboro and Attleboro The hearings closed at 9:30 P.M. A 10 minute break was taken. A motion was made by Mr. DeTrolio and seconded by Mr. Daniels to postpone the vote until the next meeting on May 21, 1996. Unanimously approved. (Secher, Butler, Daniels, Flynn, DeTrolio). The merits should be discussed and go from there. (1) Discuss standing of Mr. Remillard - never seen applicant at any of these meetings or hearings; (2) Did the Planning Board act within their authority; and (3) Did the Building Inspector act within his authority. Minutes of May 7, 1996 Page 5 of 5 A motion was made by Mr. Daniels and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to approve the Minutes of April 2, 1996. Unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Donald Daniels, Clerk