Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_01211997f'vxt; Of 41} f`t=iFLO ZONIN ARD OF APPEALS 9] FEB -6 Ph ILL W ., -. (SS�C�USET MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 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: Richard Secher, Chairman; Leonard Flynn; Eric Butler; Richard Devine; and Jack Vultaggio, Associates Member. Leonard Flynn was appointed Acting Clerk for this meeting. Jack Vultaggio was appointed Voting Member in place of Donald Daniels The hearing on the application of Roger Mitchell for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By -Law, to allow for the construction of an attached garage, located at 20 Hemlock Lane, with less than the required sideyard setback in the R -2 Zone began at 7:30 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A "; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Proposed Building Addition to House No. 20 Hemlock Lane prepared by Rim Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With five (5) members present they voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the application. It is the Board's opinion that the addition could be constructed without the need for a variance if the size is reduced to 24 feet -- the size of a standard two -car garage." Mr. Secher asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Mitchell explained that he would like to add a 28'x 34' two -car garage on to this house; the reasons being: (1) it is necessary to accommodate code plus materials; (2) he wishes to add a front door to the left of the garage bays in order to access the garage without opening the bays; and (3) he would like to bring his tools up from the basement and have his workshop in the rear of the garage. Mr. Mitchell further explained that he is only requesting three (3) feet for a single story garage; the garage will be pushed back on his property to be flush with the family room, and that there is no access into the family room from the garage which is why he needs to put a door in the front of the garage. Minutes of January 21, 1997 Page 2 of 6 The Board members raised some questions about the size of the garage and what Mr. Mitchell meant by code plus materials. Mr. Mitchell explained that he was informed by his contractor to use (2'x6 "s) instead of the standard (2'x4 "s). Mr. Devine was concerned about the noise to be generated by Mr. Mitchell's workshop being in the garage and the neighbors not being informed that he workshop would be in the garage. The hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. The hearing on the application of the Town of Mansfield for a Variance from Section 4.7.4.1 of the Zoning By -Law, to allow for the installation of two (2) signs, one more than allowed and both greater than three (3) square feet, for the Municipal Complex located on Park Row, between South Main Street and Union Streets, in the R -3 Zone began at 7:50 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A'; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B'; a Planting Plan, Additions and Renovations to the Mansfield Town Hall, prepared by Strekalovsky & Hoit, Inc., Architects, Hingham, MA, and Allen M. Lieb Architects, P.C., Ltd., Lynnfield, MA dated 10/4/95, was labeled as Exhibit "C'; and a Sketch of the Sign dated 11/4/96, was labeled as Exhibit "D". Mr. Flynn 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. The Board agreed that the signs are necessary; however, they would like to see signs of higher quality in keeping with the character and image of the town." Mr. Secher asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Richard Lewis explained that the Town is seeking to allow for the installation of two (2) signs for the Municipal Complex located on the former Park Row, between South Main and Union Streets. The purpose of these signs is to provide recognizable identification for the residents of Mansfield and other persons, from other towns, to alert them to the location of the new Town Hall. Having only one sign of this size will not adequately provide for the necessary identification of the new Town Hall. One sign will be place on the Union Street side and face the cemetery and the other sign will face the businesses on South Main Street. The sign will be single faced, 9 square feet with no illumination. Minutes of January 21, 1997 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Lewis read a description of the proposed sign into the record. "Site Signage Specifications - Town Hall (1) Site signs shall be fabricated from heart redwood as detailed on Figure I and as manufactured by Wallace and Wallace, Rockland, MA or equal. (2) Sign panels shall be 2 inch nominal thickness redwood members, edge -glued (waterproof) and machine sanded to form single sign panels. Post shall be standard 6 inch by 6 inch (nominal) heart redwood. All wood shall be stained with two coats of Cabot's Semi- Transparent Oil Stain or approved equal in a color approved by the Owner (Dark Ivy Green). (3) All letters and symbols shall be routed to a depth of 3/8 inch in an approved graphic style and size prior to painting with two coats of Cabot's Navajo White (OVT) or approved equal. (4) All hardware shall be steel, hot dip galvanized conforming to ASTM A123 and A153 as applicable." Mr. Flynn stated that he feels these signs are necessary since it is a public building used by alot of different people. Mr. Devine stated that the School Administration Building has no sign; the Town Hall not having a sign is inconvenient not a hardship; and that the sign takes away from the aesthetics Peter DeTrolio (Elm Street) stated that he feels it is not necessary for the Town Hall to have two signs. It is a big building which stands out and finding the building will not be a problem for people. The hearing closed at 8:15 P.M. The hearing on the application of William Lorigan, Moeser & Associates for a Special Permit per Section 3.10.4A of the Zoning By -Law, to allow for the alteration and extension of a pre - existing, non - conforming commercial use, involving changes to parking and traffic areas, drive -up window operations, and storage areas, at the Wendy's Restaurant located at 64 Copeland Drive, in the B -3 Zone began at 8:15 P.M. The application was labeled Exhibit "A"; newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B"; an Existing Conditions Survey Drawing of Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA, prepared by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation and Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of N.Y., Inc., Dublin, OH, dated 2/12/96, was labeled as Exhibit "C "; and a Proposed Alteration/Remodel prepared by Moeser & Associates, Architect, Harvard, MA, dated 10/24/96, was labeled as Exhibit "D ". Mr. Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members present they voted 5 -1 to send a negative recommendation on the application. The Board recognizes the existing traffic problem at the site but is concerned about a double driveway abutting a residential neighborhood, the placement of three parking spaces at the front of the lot, and increased traffic and congestion. Minutes of January 21, 1997 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Lorigan, it is my opinion that if Wendy's has used this successfully at other locations and has not experienced internal traffic problems, I am inclined to approve the site plan as amended. I would suggest that we keep an eye for potential traffic problems here, but it is my feeling that the improvements they are proposing will significantly alleviate the traffic congestion at the front of the facility during peak house of use ". An abutter, Mark Blundell, 46 Henry Street, presented a letter from the neighbors which stated "N.I.M.F.Y. (not in my front yard): late night delivery noise; early morning dumpster noise; objectional intercom noise; repulsive greasy cooking odors; excessive fight trespass; lack of visual screening; objectional noise levels at all house; dangerous traffic backups onto Copeland Drive; and litter all over the neighborhood (not just Henry Street). Mr. Blundell stated that there is truck noise all the time, employees slam dumpsters at 1:00 a.m.- 2:00 a.m., and new lighting was installed which is much too bright and the abutters were never notified. An abutter, Cameron McNeil, 52 Henry Street, stated that the speaker should be moved. It is so loud you can hear customers ordering their food very clearly and Wendy's is not acting responsible. The fence has deteriorated; there is trash everywhere; construction starts at 11:00 p.m. and absolutely no consideration is given that they are in a residential area. An abutter, Chester Ballus, 51 Campbell Street, stated that all the scotch pines that were planted there were torn out and now the fence is so deteriorated that there is no privacy. An abutter, Karl Clemmey, West Street, asked the Board what vote is needed to pass a request for a Special Permit. The Board stated that a 4 -1 vote will be needed. Mr. Clemmey stated that this land is zoned for exactly what Wendy's proposes to do. The issue here is a public safety issue and that is what the applicant is here for. Wendy's proposal will get more cars off the street and in regard to the noise problem, there is no noise ordinance and there should be. An abutter, Helen Prohodsky, 73 Fowler Street, commented on the trees being taken down. Mr. Lorigan asked the Board for a continuance on this application until March 4, 1997 so he can meet again with the Planning Board. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Vultaggio to allow the hearing to be continued until March 4, 1997. Unanimously approved. The letter dated September 24, 1996 from Shaun Burke to Bert Cook should be obtained and placed in the file. Minutes of January 21, 1997 Page 5 of 6 We also believe that the drive•thru lane should be blocked off and will not work as proposed. We would be receptive to looking at an alternative plan which addresses these concern." Mr. Secher asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. William Lorigan introduced himself and stated that he was concerned with the Planning Board's letter. He was not informed of their meeting and he was not copied on that letter. Mr. Flynn explained that the Planning Board reviews each application and makes recommendations to the ZBA, but the applicants are not invited to those meetings. Mr. Lorigan explained that the proposed alteration of the existing drive -thru lane, the restriping of the parking lot and the addition of a new drive -thru cash window will help alleviate the traffic confusion during the peak serving hours at the restaurant. With these alterations, 8 more cars will fit into the parking lot and be off the street in the drive -thru lane. Right now there are 42 parking space and after the alterations there will still be 42 spaces. With the addition of the cash window, things will flow quicker by paying at one window and picking your foot up at the next. Wendy's also wants to renovate the old non - conforming restrooms to new handicapped accessible restrooms required by the Massachu- setts Access Board. To be able to complete this task they need additional room within the building, but they do not want to increase the physical size of the building. Wendy's plans to remove the old interior cooler to make room for the new restrooms and locate a new cooler on the exterior of the building. Mr. Lorigan presented a letter dated September 24, 1996 to Bertram Cook, Inspector of Buildings from Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development. Mr. Flynn read this letter into the record. "I have reviewed the Wendy's site plan and offer the following: It is my opinion that the changes to the site do not trigger a full site plan review process. Therefore, I believe you will be able to act on this plan without the need for a staffing meeting or Planning Board review. Please be advised that on Friday, September 6, 1996, Officer Lance Lawson and I met with William Lorigan of Moeser Associates. The outcome of that meeting was that additional detail was added to the site plan. That detail basically dealt with additional signage. Also at that meeting there was discussion of the location of the menu board. Both Officer Lawson and I though the menu board should relocated to where the proposed stop sign is in the drive- through lane. However, it is my understanding that W. Lorigan's client is of the opinion that the relocation of the menu board is not necessary. Officer Lawson and I were of the opinion that the menu board should be relocated in order to prevent people from jumping the line and to eliminate other potential internal traffic conflicts. At this point Officer Lawson has reviewed the plan and it is my sense he would still rather seethe menu board relocated. After discussion with Minutes of January 21, 1997 Page 6 o.� 6 A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Devine to deny the variance to Roger Mitchell, 20 Hemlock Lane. Vote 3 -2. Those in favor of the Motion (Flynn, Devine, Secher) - 1 Those opposed to the Motion (Butler; Vultaggio) Reasons -No demonstrated hardship, no hardship to the land, derogates from the intent of the by -law. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Vultaggio to grant a variance the Town of Mansfield for signage. Vote 4 -1.. Those in favor of the Motion (Flynn, Vultaggio, Butler, Secher) Those opposed (Devine). Reasons: public building frequented by out of town people, not illuminated. Minutes of January 7, 1997 approved with revisions (Armstrong - applicant already had two accesses, no hardship - already using other access - there was considerable discussion on the merits before the attorney withdrew.) The meeting closed at 9:50 P.M. erk