HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_03021999ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS,
MINUTES
MARCH 2,1999
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 Devine, Chairman; Leonard Flynn,
Clerk; Richard Secher; Eric Butter; Jack Vultaggio, Associate Member; and Olivier Kozlowski,
Associate Member.
Mr. Vultaggio was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Daniels.
The hearing on the application of Linda Souza for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning
By -Law to allow for a landing platform, to be added to a two - family home at 46 -48 King Street
[R -3 Zone], with less than the required sideyard setback. The hearing began at 7:30 P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A'; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B'; and a
Mortgage Inspection Plan in Mansfield, MA dated June 19, 1995 and prepared by Paul J. Berger,
Inc., Land Surveyor, 1749 Central Street, Stoughton, MA. Mr. Flynn read a letter from the
Planning Board into the record. "With five (5) members present, they voted unanimously to send
a positive recommendation on the application because there is a hardship to both the owner and
the tenants if the owner is not allowed to do the work."
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present her case.
Mrs. Souza stated that she would like to apologize to the Board because the platform is already
there. Mrs. Souza felt that this was a hazardous condition because here tenant's daughter had
twisted her ankle and the platform was constructed to correct this condition. The rear exit door
(kitchen door) is the primary door used by the tenants at 46 King Street which leads to a small 4'
wide stoop and which is approximately twelve (12) feet from the edge of a stone wall which is
approximately the lot line. The narrow strip of land between the house and the stone wall slopes
quite steeply and whenever it rains, the water flows down this strip causing constant erosion.
Prior to the construction of this platform it was very dangerous to walk down this strip which was
gutted with ruts. The platform which was put at the bottom of these stairs created a level surface
at the base area of the stairs and allows the water flow to run right under and out to the driveway.
The platform makes it much safer for the tenants and the main reason why Mrs. Souza is
requesting this variance.
Page 2 of 8
Mr. Flynn stated that he viewed the property and the platform serves the purpose, but he needs to
see the platform on a Plan, with dimensions, done by a registered land surveyor or engineer.
A direct abutter, Linda Brady, is very concerned that this platform or deck (which has furniture
on it) is really on her property. Ms. Brady was told about a year ago when she purchased the
property next door to Mrs. Souza, that the property line is pasted the stone wail.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Flynn to continue this hearing until
March 16 or until Mrs. Souza can present new plans with the requested information.
Unanimously approved. (Devine, Secher, Flynn, Butler, Vultaggio).
Mr. Kozlowski was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Daniels.
The hearing on the application of Krishna Murthy for a Variance from Section 3.8.1 of the Zoning
By -Law to allow for the construction of a detached garage with less than the required setback
from the side lot line, with the work occurring at 470 Franklin Street in the R -I Zone. The
hearing began at 7:45 P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A'; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B'; and a
Zoning Board of Appeal Plan dated December 11, 1998, prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge
Associates, 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 unanimous to send a negative
recommendation on the application because the applicant has not provided evidence to
demonstrate there there is no hardship being created on their neighbor. In the application the
applicant states that the Variance is necessary because of the unique topography of the lot. The
applicant does not, however, provide any topographical information to support this statement.
The Planning Board also notes that the plan provided shows other zoning violations on the
property.
Mr. Devine asked the applicants to present their case.
Attorney Gregory White of White & White, 118 Coney Street, Walpole, MA stated that he is
representing the applicants, Krishna and Vimala Murthy. The applicants are requesting to
construct an accessory two -car garage which is to be 23'x26' and situated on the easterly side of
Page 3 of 8
the property, 10 feet from the rear of the house. The front of the garage will be 5 feet from the
sideyard property line, but the easterly corner of the garage is proposed to be 1.7 feet from the
easterly sideyard boundary line.
The house was constructed in 1972 and is in conformance with the zoning setback requirements
in effect at the time of construction, except the deck which has been in existence for more than 10
years. The applicants purchased the house on October 16, 1996,
Mr. White further stated that the applicants meet the criteria for the granting of this variance
relating to the sold conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures and especially
affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is
located. The property has limited rear right side setback requirements due to soil conditions
regarding a substantial accumulation of rocks and boulders in the rear of the property limiting the
level area available for setting a foundation.
Mr. Flynn asked if these boulders could be jackhammered and then the cement poured, or could
the garage be placed somewhere else. Also, couldn't the garage be placed further in the rear and
just extend the driveway.
Mr. White explained that the garage (accessory building) is limited to the rear of the house and it
meets all other requirements. And to extend the driveway would be a financial hardship.
Paul Burns, the builder from Walpole, stated that the boulders cannot be removed and the
excavator told him that he wouldn't suggest moving them.
A direct abutter, Deborah Conway of 474 Franklin Street, who would be most effected by this
addition stated that she is very opposed to this application. She stated that this is a preference
rather than a need for the applicants. The land is there, they just do not want to remove all the
flower gardens they have. Mrs. Conway also stated that she is very concerned with the lot lines
and recently they both hired people to cut down some of their trees, and the applicant's had a tree
from Mrs. Conway's yard cut down, even though there were markers placed.
The Board inquired if an amendment from the 10 feet house requirement were lowered, if the
garage could be placed closer to the house and further from the lot line.
Page 4 of 8
The applicants did not seem interested in this option because they explained they have a bay
window on that side of the house.
The hearing closed at 8:20 P.M.
Mr. Vultaggio was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Daniels.
The hearing on the application of Charles Boehm for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning
By -Law to allow for the addition to a house at 45 Fredric Lane (R -1 Zone) which will result in a
sideyard setback less than the requirement of the By -Law. The hearing began at 8:20 P.M.
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B'; and a
Zoning Plan Lot 23 #45 Fredric Lane, Mansfield, MA dated December 9, 1998 and prepared by
Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Mr. Flynn read a
letter from the Planning Board into the record. "The Planning Board with five (5) members
present voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the application because the
applicant presents no evidence of a hardship as required by Chapter 40A."
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case.
Mr. Boehm explained that he would like to build a 22'x26' addition to the north side of their
existing home which will be used as a two -car garage. The existing garage is to be converted
into living space for his in -laws since they do not want to live in a nursing home. One of his
in -laws uses a walker and the other uses crutches sometimes. They had considered putting the
addition over the existing garage but that will not work with his in -laws. Mr. Boehm further
stated that his home is one of the smallest on the street and his neighbor, Mrs. Bobrowski is in
favor of this application because it will add value to the home.
Mr. Vultaggio asked if this addition could be placed in the rear of the home.
Mr. Boehm explained that there are wetlands behind their home in the shape of a half -moon.
The Board was concerned because there were no wetlands shown on the plans. If a plan can be
presented that shows the wetlands this will be hardship.
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Boehn requested a continuance in writing until March 16, 1999 in order to present plans
which will show the wetlands.
An abutter, Richard Campbell, 54 Fredric Lane, was in support of this application; it is best for -his
family; very conducive for elderly people; and will be very attractive to the neighborhood.
A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to continue this hearing until
March 16, 1999. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Kozlowski was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of W. Daniels.
The hearing on the application of Jeffrey Coffman, Coffman Acquisition Trust, for a Special
Permit, per Section 4.3.5 of the Zoning By -Laws, to allow for a modification of the Landscaping
and Screening requirements for a proposed retail/commercial building [CVS Pharmacy], with
associated parking, located at at the corner of Chauncy Street [Rt. 106] and Giles Place [B -3
Zone].
The application was labeled as Exhibit "A'; a newspaper advertisement as Exhibit "B'; and a
Plan of Land, was labeled as Exhibit "C ". There was no letter from the Planning Board because
they are meeting on March 17 to review the ZBA plans and Site Plan review.
Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case.
Attorney Susan Bernstein, introduced herself as attorney for the proposed CVS; Jeffrey Coffman
is the proposed owner; Patrick O'Leary is the Landscape and Design Engineer; and Attorney
Edward Valanzola represents the property owners, (Geraldine Abbott Millette and Edward
Marchessilli; Chancy Realty Trust), who are selling the land to Mr. Coffman)
Ms. Bernstein explained that the proposed development consists of a 9,450 square foot Pharmacy
located in Mansfield, MA.- -The proposed sites is bounded on the north and west by Giles Place,
on the south by Chauncy Street (Rt. 106) and on the east by Osoo Drug Store. Access to the site
is provided by a one full- service driveway on Chauncy Street (Rt. 106). The store entrance faces
the intersection of Giles Place and Chancy Street. Two full- service driveways will provide access
to the site. One driveway located approximately 150 feet east of Giles Place will provide
Page 6 of 8
Page 6 of 8
access to and from Chauncy Street, with a prohibited left turn into Chancy Street. Vehicles
entering from Chancy Street will proceed straight ahead to access the drive -thru or circulate
clockwise to park. A secondary driveway will be located on Giles Place and will service vehicles
entering and existing from Giles Place. Vehicles entering from the Giles Place driveway will
circulate counterclockwise to access parking and the drive -thru. Due to the size constraints on-
this site, it is impractical to comply with all the landscape requirements in the By -Law. CVS
made an effort to conform to the greatest extent possible. The proposed landscape plan provides
equivalent benefits to those prescribed in the By -Law for the site and surrounding areas. The
sole purpose of this application is for landscaping and screening and CVS feels that it will be good
and be beneficial to the community.
Mr. Patrick O'Leary presented handouts to the Board members explained that there is a two -story
building there now, in a gravely state with no major vegetation and small isolated wetland
pockets. The proposed sites will require demolition of an existing building, pavement, curbing,
trees, signs, drainage structures and utilities (including gas, electric, sewer and underground
retention. In order for the proposed stormwater retention system to connect into the existing
closed drainage system in Giles Place, the site will need to be raised several feet. Because of the
poor fill material that exists on -site, a surcharge of three feet of new soil will be required to
density and compact the unsuitable material. However, the proposed underground stormwater
detention system described in the following sections will maintain a zero net increase in peak
discharge. Stormwater runoff will be managed through underground piping of impervious areas
that will discharge into an underground detention system. The landscaped buffer strips will sheet
flow into existing closed drainage systems in Chauncy Street and Giles Place.
Mr. O'Leary further stated that haybale diversion berms will be utilized to intercept sediment,
reduce runoff velocities around stockpiled earth materials and down proposed graded slopes, and
divert runoff away from disturbed areas of limited extent. This devise will be used both
upgradient and downgradient of grading operations.
This is a unique landscape because the CVS is bordered on three sides by streets. On Rt. 106
there will be a 15 feet buffer and on the Giles Place there will be a 20 foot buffer; with no buffers
in the rear of the building. But if the building is allowed to be moved up 5 feet, they would be
able to add a five foot buffer in the rear, without effecting any of the dimensional requirements.
There is a five foot sidewalk easement which will be constructed in the future. The are planning
on planting approximately 196 shrubs (azaleas, junipers and evergreens) and with the existing
i 4
Page 7 of 8
trees; ten trees in total. There will be no large plantings because they would create site distance
hazards. They meet all dimension and parking requirements and are only looking for the
screening and buffers.
Mr. Flynn stated that he was not prepared for the meeting this evening and would like to continue
this hearing until the next meeting on March 16, 1999. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and
seconded by Mr. Butler to continue the hearing. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Valanzola asked that the Board make a decision tonight before the Site Plan meeting on
March 17, 1999. The Board explained that if any ZBA member does not feel ready to vote and
requests a continuance, the other members are in full support of each other.
The discussion on Mr. Alex Skene, Robyn Lane, continued from February 16, 1999 was
discussed. Mr. Skene presented a new Sewage Disposal Design dated 10/26/98 and prepared by
Gallagher Engineering, Foxboro, MA,
Mr. Flynn stated that the Plans presented at the 2/16/999 meeting was a modification. There was
a Form A and the statute of limitations has expired. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and
seconded by Mr. Vultaggio to grant a variance to Mr, Skene. Unanimously granted (Devine,
Secher, Butler, Vultaggio and Kozlowski). Reason: It is a fully developed subdivision with the
final lot to be built on.
A motion was made by Mr. Kozlowski and seconded by Mr. Secher to deny a variance to Mr. and
Mrs. Murthy. Unanimously denied. (Devine, Butler, Secher, Flynn, Kozlowski). Reasons: Don't
see anything unique with the land; no hardship; this would be an infringement on the neighbors.
A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Butler to approve the Minutes of
February 16, 199 but not to release the Executive Session. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Karl Clemmey was in the audience for the entire meeting and had a few questions for the
Board. (1) Doesn't the ZBA need a letter of recommendation from the Planning Board before a
vote can be taken; (2) Doesn't Richard Lewis need to make an opinion on each case and isn't that
in his job description and what he gets paid for; and (3) How are the abutters lists done?
r,
Page 8 of 8
Mr. Devine explained to Mr. Clemmey that a letter of recommendation is not necessary to make a
decision and Dick Lewis gives opinions on cases when is it necessary for his opinion. Karen
Lawlor explained to Mr. Clemmey that each applicant does his own abutter list at the Assessor's
Office; it is then certified by the Assessors and the notices are then sent out by Karen. If a list is
more than a month or so old, the ZBA requests that the list be updated to correct any errors.
A motion was made by Mr. Vultaggio and seconded by Mr. Flynn to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
V�a ly erk