HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_10071997t
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
OCTOBER 7,1997
c3 70C1 2 00 :-.:!11:33
s 1t LD {c
MASS
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,
Acting Clerk; Eric Butler; Richard Devine; and Olivier Kozlowski, Associate Member.
The hearing on the application of Harley and Tina Hoyt for a Finding per Sections 3.10.4 and
6.2.2.1) of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the expansion of a pre- existing, non - conforming single
family house with less than the required side yard setback, said house located at 379 Mill Street in
the R -1 Zone.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A'; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit 'B'; and a Plan
of Land in Mansfield, MA dated September 3, 1994, prepared by Pickering Land Survey, West
Bridgewater, Massachusetts, was labeled as Exhibit "C. 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."
Mr. Secher asked the applicants to present their case.
Attorney Thomas Nannicelli stated that he is representing Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt. Attorney
Nannicelli explained that after the applicants purchased the property in 1990, they removed an
existing deck and stairway which, according to a house inspection that was performed in
connection with their purchase, was rotted and unstable. They erected a new expanded deck and
stairs to replace the old ones. Because of confusion as to the location of their property line, the
applicants did not discover that the deck was in violation of the sideyard setback requirement until
they attempted to sell their property in August of 1994. They were unable to sell this property
and remain unable to sell it as a result of this violation. The single family dwelling on this property
was a pre - existing, nonconforming structure prior to the erection of the new deck and stairs in
August of 1991. The deck and stairs could not be built to the rear of the structure because of the
location of the cesspool.
In September of 1994 the applicants applied for a finding under Sections 3.10.4 and 6.2.2.D. A
public hearing was held on that application on September 6, 1994. A motion was unanimously
passed to approve the finding contingent with a receipt of a certified deed and plot plan to be filed
I
Minutes of October 7, 1997
with the Bristol County Registry of Deeds establishing a boundary line between the applicants'
�. property and the abutting property at 385 Mill Street. A dispute subsequently arose between the
applicants and the owners of 385 Mill Street. This dispute was only recently resolved following
litigation in the Land Court in Boston. As a result of a settlement and judgment entered in that
case, the applicants and the owners of 385 Mill Street entered into a Boundary Line Agreement.
(Copies of the Boundary Line Agreement and Plan were in the applicant's file).
Due to the fact at the applicants withdrew their original application for a finding more than two
years ago, it is now necessary to file the application again requesting the same relief.
Maryanne and Albert Curtis, abutters at 361 Mill Street, feel that the maps are all wrong, they are
trying to take his land away, and they want to protest. The Board members explained that the
applicant's property has nothing to do with his land.
The hearing closed at 8:05 P.M.
The hearing on the application of Sprint Spectrum L.P. and Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile for a
Variance from Section 3.6.7.4.2 of the Zoning By -Law to allow for the construction of a
telecommunication facility tower which is proposed to have less than the required setback from
the easterly property line, said facility to be located at 33 Suffolk Road in the I -1 Zone.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A'; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B "; and a Site
Plan revised 9/22/97, prepared by Paul P. Erhard, P.E., Edwards & Kelcey Wireless, Boston,
MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ".
Mr. Secher asked the applicants to present their case.
Attorney Edward Valanzola stated that he is representing the applicants Sprint Spectrum L.P.
and Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile. They are requesting approval for a side yard variance as part of
the replacement of an existing 150 foot tall wireless communication monopole with a new
monopole of the same height and to install a related equipment pad and equipment shelter for use
on the land located at West Street and Suffolk Road, for use as a telecommunications facility
providing personal communications services. The setback of the monopole from the property
line of the lot on which it is located must be at least equal to the height of the monopole. The
distance of the monopole to the easterly property line is approximately 120 feet.
Mr. Valanzola further stated that he feels the hardship is that there is an existing pole with not
enough capacity. The new pole would be constructed, set up and the old pole taken down
without any loss of communications. The police and fire departments would benefit and this will
1 `
Minutes of October 7, 1997
help the community. Also, the pole already exists in this location and there is no opposition from
abutters.
The hearing closed at 8:20 P.M.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to grant a Finding to Mr. and
Mrs. Hoyt. This is an old issue but the two parties have resolved it; zoning has changed.
Unanimously granted. (Secher, Flynn, Butler, Devine, Kozlowski)
A motion was made by Mr. Devine and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to grant a Variance to Sprint.
Pole was built before the 150 feet requirement. Unanimously granted. (Secher, Flynn, Butler,
Devine, Kozlowski)
The hearing on Joyce McNeil for a Variance from Section 3.8.1 of the Zoning By -Law to allow
for the construction of an accessory structure [in- ground pool] in the sideyard of the existing
house located at 61 Oakland Street in the R -2 Zone which was continued from September 16,
1997 was continued at 8:30 P.M.
Tony Zigami, the representative from the pool company presented to the Board the requested
additional information showing the gas lines, the sewer lines and the envelope for the pool area.
Mr. Flynn pointed out that the engineer did not put a revised date on the revised plans.
A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Devine to grant a variance to Mr. and
Mrs. McNeil with the condition that new plans with a revised date are submitted. Unanimously
granted. (Secher, Flynn, Devine, Butler, Kozlowski)
The Board and Mr. Lewis discussed revisions on the ETC and Pires Decisions. The new revised
Decisions will be placed as soon as possible at the Police Station for signatures.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
i
;lerk