Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba02172009 TOWN OF MANSFIELD f1 ft r." "/1::'-0 -, . L .~ :'C: nCF'CE ;../ \""1 I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10Dl - f4 A 9= I 3 MINUTES ;_i FEBRUARY 17.2009 The Zoning 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: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk; Peter DeTrolio; Kevin Mackie; Dave Rapoza. The application of Kristen W eiskerl Alexander Cuddeback for a Modification to increase the height of a structure from a previously approved Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law to allow for the construction of an attached breezeway and garage with less than the required side yard setback at 160 East Street in the R-2 Zone began at 7:30 p.m. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B', a Zoning Board Plan 160 East Street dated 8/27/04 and revised on 5/30106 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge, 200 Chauncy Street, Mansfield, MA was labeled as Exhibit "C"; and elevation drawings "Proposed Exterior Views Cutterback Residence 169 East Street, Mansfield, MA dated 2/11108 and revised on 1/21/09 and prepared by Creative Designs, George Leven Drive, North Attleboro, MA was labeled as Exhibit "D". Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With seven (7) members present, the Board voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the modification to the variance to allow a two-story garage when a one-story garage has been approved. Members were concerned about the mass and bulk of the proposed addition, as well as its height in relation to the existing house and to neighboring structures. In addition, given the proximity of the structure to the property line, the members were concerned about building code and fire separation issues. Finally, the Planning Board noted that the town's GIS system appears to show the "paper street" next to the proposed garage is owned by the abutter to the rear and may no longer be a paper street. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department." Mrs. Weisker introduced herself as the owner and Mr. Cuddeback as her husband and contractor. Mr. Cuddeback explained that a variance was granted to them for a garage and breezeway in September 2007 and he never showed the Board any plans, elevation drawings or height requirements. He further explained that at that time they were not sure exactly what they were proposing for curb appeal and thought that the granting of the variance was all they needed. When they went to the Building Inspector he refused to give a building permit because he felt the addition was more than what the Zoning Board had granted. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17.2009 Pa2e 2 of 4 Mr. Cuddeback further explained that the house has no facial appeal and they would like the house to stand out and make a statement. The house is under appraised and needs to stand out and be more attractive. This addition will not encroach on the existing houses and the addition will have a 5-Y1 pitch and not be higher than 3' 1 0" above the existing house roofline. An indirect abutter from Willis Street stated that he was not at the last meeting and was just concerned about what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Vultaggio stated that he does not have a problem with the property next to the house because it is attached to property on Willis Street but has easement and cannot be built on. From a practical standpoint they are not dealing with an abutter. Robert Carroll, an abutter from directly across the street, explained that he has a drainage easement next to his property which extends across the street and right down the easement which abuts this property, and there is no way anyone can do anything on this property. The Board agreed with the Building Inspector and stated that Nick's reading on this variance was correct. The variance was not specific as to the height of the addition; this is something that the Board has been trying to address in more recent decisions. Mr. DeTrolio stated that he is against this modification. The Board intended for this to be a one-story garage, even though it was not stated in the decision. Further, they will be turning this proposed second story addition into a room and he doesn't think that this should be granted. Hearing closed at 7:55 p.m. A Motion was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. Mackie to approve the variance with a height modification with the condition that the addition is not more than 4 feet higher than existing house. Variance approved 4-1. All in favor (Vultaggio, Garber- Miller, Mackie, Rapoza); All opposed (DeTrolio). Discussion: Mackie stated that even though he voted against it last time and it is too close to the property line; they do have a variance and it would be more attractive to the neighborhood. Ms. Garber-Miller stated that she has been bothered by this Variance since she voted for it last time, but since she approved it the first time, she will not change her mind. Mr. DeTrolio stated that he voted positive last time, but he will not make the same mistake twice. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17.2009 Pa2e 3 of 4 The discussion with George and Lisa Chalifoux of Jakes Way was continued at 8:00 p.m. Mr. DeTrolio was concerned with the financing and the construction of the proposed addition and whether or not they were allowed to build it. The applicants did the research and they got the correct answers. Ms. Garber-Miller stated that she wanted this continued until tonight's meeting in order to wait for Mr. Vultaggio to discuss whether his prior discussions with Nick Riccio. The housing authorities stated to the Chalifouxs that they do make some allowances for small capital improvement. The Board wanted to take the position that any improvements in regard to the 40B developments should come before the Board to determine whether the change is or is not substantial to the comprehensive permit. The Board did note that in the comprehensive permit there are some listed allowable expansions, and that overall, the applicant in considering modifications to the special permit is the developer not the individual homeowners. Ms. Garber-Miller explained to the applicants that she feels the need to ask a lot of questions because this is the first 40B expansion to come before us and the Board needs to do this correctly in case anyone else comes before us. Mr. Vultaggio stated that the Board needs to cover ourselves and make certain that any change that is approved is not in violation of our bylaws. Mr. Vultaggio also expressed that every change should come before the Building Inspector in every instance. Mr. Vultaggio indicated that the Board needs to make certain that the decision is tied to the plan that has been presented. The Board also needs to insure that it is determined whether or not any proposed change is a substantial change requiring a public hearing. A Decision should be prepared and it should say that the proposed change is not substantial and that this is a modification to the comprehensive permit to an individual house lot at 49 Jakes Way. A motion was made by Ms. Garber-Miller and seconded by Mackie that the Zoning Board finds that the addition proposed by the applicant not a substantial change to the comprehensive permit and that the Board approves the proposed Modification of 49 Jakes Way in the Baybrook Village 40B project pursuant to the plan dated February 2, 2009. The Board further found that this is not a substantial change to the Bay Brook Comprehensive Permit and that the proposed addition complies with all the dimensional requirements, all the conditions within the comprehensive permit and with the Mansfield Zoning By-Laws. Unanimously approved MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17.2009 Pa2e 4 of 4 A Motion was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to adjourn this meeting at 9:30 p.m. Unanimously approved. Respectfully: submitted, . ~~.~ Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk