HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_05061997RECEIVED
ED
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0!i IN' OFFICE
97 JUG 19 PN 3: 24
MINUTES , If !_D
HASSACNU3ETTS
MAY 6,1997
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: Donald Daniels, Clerk; Eric Butler; Leonard
Flynn; Richard Devine; Jack Vultaggio, Associate Member; and Olivier Kozlowski, Associate
Member.
A motion was made by Mr. Devine and seconded by Mr. Flynn to appoint Mr. Butler, Chairman,
for this meeting. Unanimously approved.
The hearing on the application of Peter and Rose Parente for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1 and
1.5.17a of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the use of a single family house lot with less than the
required lot frontage, area, and width, said lot located in the R -1 Zone, adjacent to the house at 2
Grove Street.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit 'B "; and a Plan
of Land prepared by George Poor, Surveyor, Mansfield, MA dated November 13, 1961, was
labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Daniels read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With
five (5) members present, they voted 3 -2 to send a negative recommendation on the application.
The lots were created by Form A 9n 1961, have been held in common ownership, and subjected
to zoning changes on a number of occasions."
Mr. Butler asked the applicants to present their case.
An attorney, Marc Antine of Roster & Antme, 66 Winthrop Street, Taunton, MA, explained that
he was representing the Parentes. Rose and Peter Parente have lived on Grove Street since 1962
and they would like to transfer the wooded lot next to them to their daughter and son -in -law to
build a house. Mr. Parente's parents owned both lots. In 1961, he transferred the corner lot to
Rose and Peter Parente, on which they built their house and the other vacant lot to Leo and Ingrid
Parente. The lots remained in separate ownership until 1967 when Leo and Ingrid transferred the
lot to Rose and Peter. The Parentes had no idea there would be a problem since they had built
their house on the other lot.
Minutes of May 6, 1997
Page 2 of 6
Attorney Antine further stated that he feels there is a limited freeze protection on the property, so
they are really seeking relief from the 45,000 square foot lot and 150 foot frontage requirement,
no the 60,000 lot requirement Mr. Antine further stated that he feels the topography and shape of
the land is unique; all of these lots are approximately the same size; and this is not a situation to
make a financial gain (it is for their daughter). Mr. Antine also stated that he has some cases
which support his argument. Mr. Parente presented a petition from her neighbors and abutters, all
in favor of this variance application. Mr. Daniels read the petition into the record. "Thirteen (13)
signatures of area residents all in favor of this application."
The hearing closed at 8:15 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Anthony and Eleanor Dilulis for a Variance from Section
1.5.17a of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the creation of a single family house lot with less than
the required lot width, said lot located in the R -2 Zone, adjacent to the house at 200 Fruit Street.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Plan
of Land prepared by Rim Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA dated March 7, 1997, was labeled
as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Daniels read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6)
members present, they voted 3 -2 to send a negative recommendation on the application. It is the
opinion of the Board that the applicants created their own hardship in dividing the parcel into four
(4) rather than three (3) lots on the recently submitted and approved ANR plan."
Mr. Butler asked the applicants to present their case.
Jack Sullivan of Rim Engineering explained that he is representing Mr. and Mrs. Dilulis. Mr.
Sullivan read his letter dated March 24, 1997 into the record. "This letter is prepared on behalf of
the owner /applicant, Anthony and Eleanor Dilulis, to request a variance from Section 1.5.17a of
the Town of Mansfield Zoning By -Laws to allow Lot 3 (a non - conforming lot) as a buildable lot.
Lot 3 is sown on a plan entitled "Plan of Land" prepared by Rim Engineering Co., INc., dated
March 18, 1997, Scale V =60'.
Section 1.5.17a of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law states; "Lot width: The width of any lot shall
be no less than the minimum lot frontage dimension as provided in Section 4.2, for a distance
equal to the required frontage measured at the 90 degree angle, +/ -20 degrees, from the front of
the lot as described herein."
Minutes of May 6, 1997
Page 3 of 6
Based on this definition, and following all other lot design criteria, a lot in a "112" district would
need a minimum lot area of 21,143 s.f. This contradicts Section 4.2.1 of the Town of Mansfield
Zoning By -Law which specifies a lot in a R2 district with public sewer requires a minimum lot
size of 20,000 s.f. Therefore, it appears Section 1.5.17A of the Zoning By -Law, as written,
should not apply to lots in an R2 district with public sewer.
Lot 3 falls within the zoning district "R2" with public sewer requiring a minimum lot size of
20,000 s.f and a minimum lot frontage of 150 feet. Lot 3 provides 231.82 feet of frontage along
Fruit Street and a lot area of 25,479 s.f.
Lot 3 presents a hardship in complying with Section 1.5.17A due to the shape of the lot. The
frontage of Lot 3 is primarily along an arc and attempts to achieve adequate lot width in
accordance with Section 1.5.17A was unsuccessful, even though the lot is oversized in frontage
and area. In effect, Lot 3 maintains a minimum lot depth of 150 feet throughout and portions of
the lot maintain 150 feet of width. It is due to the curvature along the lot frontage that a width of
150 feet cannot be maintained throughout.
Based on the discrepancy of Section 1.5.17A as it applies to the R2 district with public sewer, the
hardship /special circumstances relating to the lot shape, that the lot is oversized in frontage and
lot area, the fact that the owner /applicant has owned the entire parcel (Lots 1 -4) for 33 years, and
that, in general, Lot 3 satisfies the purpose of the Zoning By -Law without substantially derogating
from the intent, we ask the Board to grant the request for a variance from Section 1.5.17A of the
Zoning By -Law to allow Lot 3 as a buildable lot. Sincerely, John D. Sullivan, III, Staff
Engineer."
Mr. Sullivan further stated that Dilulis's have lived there for 33 years and have 13 acres of land.
They have provided 27% more area than required for the lots and have maintained 150 feet of
frontage. The applicants would like to retire and get a fair value for their land.
Letters from two abutters were presented, Bliss, 170 Fruit Street and, Williamson, 300 Fruit
Street, both in support of the application.
An abutter, Walter Thomas, 205 Fruit Street, stated that the applicant is creating a problem that
does not need to exist.
An abutter, Lou Andrews, 255 Fruit Street, was against the applicant because it does not meet the
requirements.
Minutes of May 6, 1997
Page 4 of 6
Anthony Jodice stated that if this goes through he can move back to Mansfield and afford to build
a house.
The hearing closed at 8:40 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Charles and Dianna Benziger for a Finding per Sections
3.10.43 and 6.2.2.13 of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the alteration [second floor dormer] of a
pre - existing, non - conforming single family house located at 168 Park Street in the R -2 Zone.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a
Mortgage Inspection Plan prepared by GRE Surveying, Winchester, MA, dated April 1, 1977,
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. The proposed addition does not appear to create any new non - conformity and
appears on the plan to be within the front yard setback of the existing structure."
Mr. Butler asked the applicants to present their case.
Mr. Benziger explained that they would like to add a 7'x7' bathroom on the second floor since
they have two children and need another bathroom. All that will be required will be a second
floor, 7 foot dormer.
The hearing closed at 8:40 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Robert E. Barry for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the
Zoning By -Law to allow for the addition to an existing house which will result in less than the
required sideyard setback, said house located at 54 Tanya Drive in the R -1 Zone.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A'; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B'; and a
Zoning Board Plan prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Mansfield, MA, dated March
24, 1997, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Daniels read a letter from the Planning Board into the
record. "With five (5) members present, they voted (4 -1) to send a positive recommendation on
the application. The proposed addition appears to present only a slight encroachment on the
sideyard and it is the Board's opinion that a hardship exists due to the shape of the lot."
Mr. Butler asked the applicants to present their case.
Minutes of May 6, 1997
Page 6 of 6
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Devine to defer the signing of the
Blackhawk decision until we can cross -check the original signed plans. Unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Devine to adjourn the meeting,
Unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
4115onald Daniels, Clerk