Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba07202010 TOWN OF MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 20. 2010 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; Kevin Mackie; Dave Rapoza; and Peter DeTrolio. The application of Joseph and Michelle DeGirolamo for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of a proposed garage; sunroom; bathroom and porch and steps with less than the required side yard setback at 41 Glen 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"; and a Proposed House Addition at Hse. No. 41 Glen Street in Mansfield, MA dated June 9, 2010 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. was labeled as Exhibit "A". There was no letter from the Planning Board. Joe DeGirolamo introduced himself and explained that he recently bought the house and want to add an addition to the high side of the property. The lot slopes on the property and because the lot is not square and at an angle it creates the hardship. Before the proposed construction there is 21.8 feet to the side yard setback. If this proposed 16 foot wide addition is approved, it will create a 4.8 foot side yard setback. Ms. Garber-Miller stated that it looks like the applicant has already forged ahead and got the builder to start. You have started ripping this stuff out and with such an extensive variance, it seems like you are trying to pressure the Board to grant something that you have already started working on, and she feels very uncomfortable about this. She further asked the applicant what his priorities are and what do you really want. What is proposed here is really tight, but you could minimize this by putting it flush with the house. Ms. Garber-Miller finally stated that her heart is not breaking for the applicant because they want another garage bay and feels that there wasn't enough thought given for what the applicant is requesting. Mr. DeGirolamo stated that all the work being done has nothing to do with the Variance request. He has a building permit for what he is working on. He is adding a bathroom on and needed to bring in trucks for that and wanted to get that done first. ----..--.~-,-,-.,-,--.,-,-,-,..--"--. I III MINUTES OF JULY20, 2010 Paf!e 2 of 6 Howie Kobey of 38 Hope Street stated that he is a direct abutter. His property abuts the applicant in the rear and he is in favor ofthis variance. Norman Choiniere of 40 Glen Street lives across the street from the applicant and stated that this property was a big mess and now it is being cleaned up and looks great. He also feels that it will improve the value of his house and the neighborhood Hearing closed at 7 :45 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. Mackie to approve the variance as set forth on the plans. Reasons: It is a side yard against a rear yard with a lot of space and the topography and angle of the lot makes it a hardship. The Board stated that even though this is very close to the side yard setback, the Board is clear that this does not mean the flood gates are opened and all variances with side yard requests will be granted. All in favor (Vultaggio, Mackie, Rapoza, DeTrolio) - All opposed (Garber-Miller) Motion granted 4-l. The application of Joann & Andrew Dousa for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of a proposed deck, connecting the existing deck, leaving the existing above-ground pool with less than the required side yard setback at 3 Meadow Lane in the R-2 Zone began at 8:00 p.m. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Plan 3 Meadow Lane dated June June 17,2010 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board. Andrew Dousa introduced himself and eXplained that their variance has two parts. On is to add a wheelchair ramp to help care for Joann's parents who live with them and the other is to construct a proposed deck, connecting the existing deck, to the existing above ground pool. The pool was approved with the correct permits and needed to be 5 feet from the property line. The pool was constructed 8.0 feet from the property line and met all the requirements. They then planned to knock down the existing railings and built out to the pool and come out 4.6 inches so they and Joann's dad who has Parkinson's disease would have access to the pool. They discovered that they were creating a non- conforming structure which needed 15 feet from the side yard setback, not the existing 8 feet. The pool is fine and deck is fine but connected the two creates a non-conformity. ,n MINUTES OF JULY20, 2010 PaJ!e 3 of 6 Robert and Eileen Kasiski of 7 Meadow Lane introduced themselves and read their letter of July 17,2010 into the record regarding Application of Variance by Joann and Andrew Dousa; Parcel 34 - 185. "We are writing to express our concerns to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the application submitted by Andy and Joann Dousa (3 Meadow Lane) seeking two variances. Our property at 7 Meadow Lane directly abuts their southern property line. We would like to identify to the Board that we have been neighbors with Andy and Joann Dousa and Joann's parents for 13 plus years and 7 years respectively. During this time, we have been extremely good friends and wonderful neighbors. For this reason we find it awkward and stressful to provide comment on this matter. In the spring the Dousa's installed their new above ground pool in accordance to Mansfield town zoning guidelines. The pool equipment (pump/filter, heater, propane tank) are currently placed beginning 2 'is to 3 feet from the property line. A few weeks back they notified us about their desire to construct a bridge deck between the pool and the existing deck attached to the home. This would allow them added entertaining space and broader access to the pool. They stated that a variance would be required to move forward, and requested that we write a letter of support to the Zoning Board of Appeals to expedite the process. At that time, we expressed our concerns about setback, aesthetics of the pump, heater and tank, noise and privacy. Not being familiar with a variance or the process, we requested some time to evaluate the impact this would have on our home and property value. Our review of their submitted application indicates a request for two Variances to be granted by the Board. One variance is for the retroactive acceptance of a porch on the north property line, and the proposed addition of a handicap ramp, both beyond the proper setback requirement. We have no concerns with this modification to their home. With regard to the second variance for the construction of a new bridge deck from the existing deck to the pool, resulting in less than the required side yard setback, we have four main concerns to be considered by the Board. On June 22, 2010 we discussed these concerns with Andy and Joann. They are as follows: Decrease in Privacy: The installation of the pool resulted in the removal of several privacy trees/shrubs and a play structure. Although the trees were older, they did provide a visual and noise buffer between the properties. Both our properties currently benefit from a 19 pus foot setback form the Dousa's home from our mutual property line. Our home also has a 19 foot setback from the property line. The proposed deck will decrease the setback closer to the town minimum of 15 feet. We had proposed to Andy and Joann a modification to this plan (Attachment #1) which preserves the 19 foot setback while retaining the total deck area and access to the pool as proposed. We feel this proposal balances the impact the new larger structure of existing deck, new deck, pool and its required pool equipment has to our home (Reference photo #1- #5). .. T In MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2010 PaJ!e 4 of 6 Increased Noise: We have two areas of concern with regard to noise. The first is the nuisance noise that has been created from the installation of their pool pump. While their above ground pool has been installed with the property setbacks, consideration was not given in the site of this equipment and impact of the noise it would produce. This equipment is approximately 3 feet from our property and can be heard on our deck. (Reference photo #4). The second noise is the un-buffered noise form entertainment. In order for the above ground pool to be installed several trees/bushes were removed which previously buffered our properties both for noise and privacy. The proposed deck would be both closer and higher than the existing deck to the property line. As example of our concern, on the night of June 23, 2010, Andy and Joann were entertaining some members of their son's baseball team. The exuberance of the boys swimming could be heard in our kitchen and family room with an open slider form our deck. The conversations of the adults could be head in detail while sitting on our deck. Aesthetic Value: The exposed pump/filter, heater and propane tank which is 2 ~ to 3 feet from the property line is not attractive. The Dousa's mentioned that this would be addressed in some fashion. Property Value: In speaking with a local real estate professional, he advised the listing price of the home could be reduced by a minimum of $10,000.00 because of increase noise and loss of privacy because of the entire project. He stated that addition of noise and loss of privacy never has a positive effect on home values. Addressing the noise, aesthetic value of the pool equipment and re-establishing the privacy can negate the loss of value. The first owners of our home installed an in-ground pool at the time of construction. This pool is located near the property line with out neighbors and friends at 11 Meadow Lane. The buffer to our pool was wisely established with a 23 foot setback and significant trees and bushes and the pump was installed to the interior back corner of the pool. We acknowledge that these trees and bushes are old and not the most beautiful, but they serve the purpose of noise abatement and visual privacy. We have had many discussions about how to groom the trees to keep them in control to maintain lot privacy awhile still allowing light to shine, and naturally maintain the heat to our pool. The tree companies suggest that these trees have grown over 40 feet in 20 years. Even with this buffer in place, we are cognizant of the noise our children create; and on two occasions we have been asked to quiet the noise so that their young children could keep their earlier bedtime. lIT MINUTESOFJULY20, 2010 Page 5 of 6 We truly understand and empathize with the Dousa's desire for an attached pool deck. However, in light of the further negative impact the proposed deck will have on our property, we cannot support this Variance as submitted. However, we could be open to supporting a modified proposal, which addresses these concerns. Our proposal is as follows: . Re-submission of a Plot Plan that identifies a 19 foot setback for the proposed bridge deck from our mutual property line. The size of the proposed bridge deck (208 sq. ft.) is not of concern. . Install landscaping, e.g. shrubs, etc.. .on their side of our mutual property line relative to: . * abate noise from the existing deck, proposed bridge deck and new above ground pool . * address the aesthetic impact on the pump/filter, heater and propane tank . * providing mutual privacy. We feel this is a reasonable proposal given the new above ground pool will be out of compliance to the required setback by 7 feet with the proposed addition of their bridge deck. Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns and suggested modifications to this application for a Variance. If you should have any further questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Robert & Eileen Kasiski." The Dousas stated that the house is at a slope and there is a water problem. There was a pool there before and it was always in water and was rusting out that is why they had to take it down. Bruce Leavitt of 37 Fruit Street stated that he is an abutter to the rear of the property and they cleared the trees in the back and put spotlights up and are very noisy neighbors. The Board stated that the noise and lights is what the applicant needs to consider. This variance request is a back end around our bylaw because the pool was just put in. Also, the Board wanted to know if the applicant has given any consideration for the neighbors. This needs to be worked out with the neighbors, and the Board doesn't want to diminish the neighbor issue, but with the way you are going about this, if the applicant is granted this variance than anyone can put a pool in and then attach a deck. Mr. Mackie stated that he appreciates when people work together with the neighbors. Final outcome will still be the same and work with the neighbors. ..--......-..----. , III MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2010 PaJ!e 6 of 6 Eilene Kasiski stated that one of the concerns is the noise on the deck. You can hear the conversation and moving it closer you will hear more. It was so loud the other night she had to go inside and not enjoy her deck because she was uncomfortable. The Board discussed the issue of whether or not they knew they were going to attach the deck to the pool when they put the pool in. The applicant stated that she did know they were going to attach but she did not know that a pool was considered a structure. The Board suggested a revised plan that would show the plantings. The applicant requested a continuance until the August 17th meeting. The meeting was continued at 9:00 p.m. The Board discussed the amount of minimal secretarial time and the rumors circulating that the Zoning Board Administrator will have her hours taken away and the Zoning work would be done in a secretarial pool with Selectmen Jess Aptowitz. Mr. Aptowitz will schedule a meeting with Town Manager to discuss this. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '7~~.<~~lA-'O)J?X_ Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk '.""'~~'___~."__""~~'~';.."....~,~.'~~K""""_~~'_'''''_--''_~ T '"