Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_06151999ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE t5,1999 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; Eric Butler; Richard Secher; and Olivier Kozlowski, Associate Member. The Board members waited until 8:00 p.m. and still no applicants for the three scheduled hearings were present. A motion was made by Mr. Secher and seconded by Mr. Butler to approve the Minutes of April 20, 1999. Unanimously approved. Michael Trowbridge arrive at approximately 8:10 p.m. and stated that the applicants (Carpet Concepts and Robert Arnold have asked him to come and speak on their behalf. Mr. Kozlowski was appointed voting member for this meeting in place of Mr. Daniels. The hearing on the application of Carpet Concepts for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Note 3, of the Zoning By -Law to allow for development of land, located on Assessor's Map 30, Parcel 35 (between Francis Ave. and Maple St.], with less than the required 75 foot setback between the abutting residential use began at 8:10 P.M. The application as labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B'; and a Proposed Site Conditions Overall View of Lot 69 dated March 1, 1999 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 six (6) members present, they voted three (3) in favor and three (3) opposed to send a positive recommendation on the application. The Planning Board then voted two (2) in favor and four (4) opposed on a motion to send a negative recommendation, based on their opinion that the applicant has adequate land to comply with the required setbacks. Due to the failure of these motions, there is no Planning Board recommen- dation on this application." Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case. Minutes of June 15, 1999 Mr. Trowbridge explained that this residential zoned lot is surrounded by an industrial zone.' A buffer has been provided against the residential use, but the seventy -five (75) foot requirement makes it very difficult to develop the property. The applicant and Mr. Trowbridge believes that they can build their proposal as designed and provide a significant buffer to the abutter. The Board agreed that this application requesting relief from the seventy -five (75) foot buffer derogates from the intent of the By -Laws. Mr. Trowbridge stated that he is coming before the Board after being asked by the Building Inspector and Shawn Burke to present this issue. Mr. Trowbridge further stated that if the applicant is not granted their other option is to create a one (1) foot strip between the applicant and the abutter and then the 75 foot buffer requirement does not apply. Mr. Flynn asked the applicant what the hardship is and Mr. Trowbridge stated that it was the shape of the land. The Board asked that if the applicant owns four or five abutting properties why can't the applicant just move the location of the proposed building and they will have the 75 foot butter? Mr. Trowbridge stated the applicant does not wish to do that. The Board further stated that if the applicant has the ability to change the lot line and not need a variance that is what they should do. Owners of the abutting property, Louis and John Certuse, were upset with this application since their property has been in the family since the 70's. They were never asked for their property to be bought for use in the industrial zone. The abutters further stated that they are not necessarily opposed but they will either end up with a lot or a building in their backyard. The whole issue is the enforcement of the Zoning By -Laws by having the 75 foot buffer requirement enforced. The hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. The hearing on the application of Robert Arnold for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Note 3, of the Zoning By -Law to allow for development of land, located on Assessor's Map 30, Parcel 35 [between Francis Ave. and Maple St.], with less than the required 75 foot setback between an abutting residential use began at 8:45 P.M. The application as labeled as Exhibit "A "; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B "; and a Proposed Site Conditions Overall View of Lot 69 dated March 1, 1999 prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C ", was labeled as Exhibit "C ". Flynn read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members Minutes of June I5, 1999 present, they voted five (5) in favor and one (1) opposed to send a positive recommendation on the application, provided the applicant provide the Zoning Board of Appeals with evidence of landscaping plan showing buffering between the building and residential use. The Board makes this recommendation based on their opinion that the shape of the lot constitutes a hardship." Mr. Devine asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Michael Trowbridge states that he is also representing this application, which is the same owner, and it is the same situation; the 75 foot buffer requirement. The hearing closed at 8:50 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to deny a variance to Carpet Concepts. Unanimously denied (5 -0). Reasons: Derogates from the intent of the Zoning By -Law; and there is no demonstrated hardship. (Devine, Flynn, Secher, Butler, Kozlowski) A motion was made by Mr. Flynn and seconded by Mr. Secher to deny a variance to Robert Arnold. Unanimously denied (5 -0). Reasons: Derogates from the intent of the Zoning By -Law; and there is no demonstrated hardship. (Devine, Flynn, Secher, Butler, Kozlowski) A motion was made on the application of Mr. Paulson who was a no -show by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Secher to continue the hearing subject to either a receipt of a request for continuance or a notice of withdrawal. Unanimously approved. The meeting adjournedlat 10:00 P.M.