Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba08172010 TOWN OF MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -1, l :..i !. MINUTES AUGUST 17.2010 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; Peter DeTrolio; and Phil Shannon, Associate Member. 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; and a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the allowance of existing stairs and the construction of a Handicapped Ramp with less than the required side yard setback at 3 Meadow Lane in the R-2 Zone was continued at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Dousa explained that they are withdrawing the portion of the application to connect the existing deck and pool with a deck. Mrs. Dousa's mother is very ill and due to the difficulties this is creating they are only here tonight for the addition of a handicapped ramp. The in-law apartment addition was added to the house 7 years ago and the existing stairs were not on the original plan. They would like to construct a ramp in accordance with the rules for handicapped accessible access with less than the required side yard setback at 3 Meadow Lane in the R-2 Zone. Hearing closed at 7:35 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. Mackie and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to grant the handicapped ramp with the condition that a new plan is drawn. The motion was unanimously granted 5-0. (Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Mackie, DeTrolio Shannon). The application of Spring Street Mill, LLC, for a Special Permit in accordance with Section 3.10 of the Zoning By-Law for the change of use and renovation to pre-existing, non-conforming structure and use, for the creation of a 22-unit, residential housing development, age restricted to 55 and over located at 68 Spring Street in the R-2 & R-3 Zone was continued at 7:45 p.m. _....___.M-......____~._~_...___....._~._.__-- 111 MINUTES OF AUGUST 17.2010 Pa2:e 2 of 5 Mr. Va1anzo1a introduced himself and stated that he represents the Spring Street Mill of 68 Spring Street and before he continues this application he needs to approach a matter and discuss it with Mr. DeTrolio. Mr. Valanzola explained that he is involved in another matter involving a liquor store and knows that Mr. DeTrolio is very disappointed and upset about what is going on and needs to address the issue of whether Mr. DeTrolio can act impartially on this matter knowing that Mr. Valanzola represents both applicants. He further explained that he has discussed this matter with the State Ethics Commissions and the fact that this is not a personal matter, he feels he has to ask Mr. DeTrolio if he can act in an impartial manner. Mr. DeTrolio affirmed that he has and always will be professional on the board. Mr. Va1anzola stated that he just came upon this project and it was already before the Board and withdrawn. They are now requesting an application for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Mansfield Zoning By-Laws. Section 3.10.4 of the By- Laws provides that, in all districts the change, extension or alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming structure or use may be allowed when authorized to do so by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.2 after a public hearing, provided, however, that such a change, extension, or alteration does not create a new non- compliance with any other use or dimensional requirement of this by-law. Section 3.10.2 of the By-Laws provides that any building, part of a building, or land which at the time of the adoption of this by-law is being put to a non-conforming use may be "changed to a similar use or to a more restricted use, provided when changed it shall not be returned to a less restricted use." Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40A, section 6 provides in part that "Pre-existing nonconforming structures or uses may be extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the permit granting authority or by the special permit granting authority designated by ordinance or by-law that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood." ~ MINUTES OF AUGUST 17.2010 Pa2:e 3 of 5 Mr. Valanzola explained that the building at 68 Spring Street, known as the Retek Building, has been in use as a manufacturing facility since the mid 1800's. The building was first operated as a jewelry factory and occupied from 1897 until approximately 1943, by Cobb, Evens and Cobb Jewelry, Inc. From 1943 until approximately 1963, the Zeeland Screw Company used the building as a factory for their production. For several years (1963-1967) Acorn Manufacturing Company used the building to manufacture door and residential hardware. Prom 1967 to 2010, Retek Industries has operated the property to manufacture machinery and automated control products. Each of the manufacturing businesses required the import of raw materials and machinery to manufacture finished products for shipment to end users. The building was designed and engineered for heavy industrial use including 3" floors, 10' ceilings, post and beam construction and oversized doors for shipping and receiving. Truck traffic is the primary means of transporting material and finished products to and from the property. Detached storage trailers have been used to store products in various stages of production. The building and the manufacturing businesses operated thereon constitute a permitted non-conforming use, which is described in the Mansfield By-Law as "...the use of any building or land lawfully occupied at the time of the adoption of this by-law which does not conform to the requirements of the district in which it is located." As a result of the high industrial construction quality of the building, its structural integrity, shape and design, including the entranceway, will be maintained. There shall be twenty-two (22) one bedroom and one bathroom units on the four building floors with 6 units on each of the first 3 floors and 4 units on the top floor. While this will add substantial tax revenues compared to the existing use, these "55 and over" residential one bedroom units will not require town services and will not impact the school and municipal budgets. Mr. Valanzola further stated that this project will not create a new non-compliance with any other use or dimensional requirement of the By-Laws, except for the proposed "55 years of age or older" residence requirements and use, which is clearly not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming (manufacturing) use to the neighborhood. This application also shows the new plans with new parking and vegetation of approximately 6 acres of land. MINUTES OF AUGUST 17.2010 Pa2e 4 of5 Mr. Valanzola noted that the applicant has met with many of the neighbors. They have discussed how the transfer has taken place and also about the sequence with the previous owners and what the applicant wants to do. This would apply with inclusionary units and a few lower income units. Mr. Mackie stated that this application is less detrimental and he wants to make sure that the Board does it right. The R-3 Zone says does not permit this type of development, but as long it is less intrusive we have the authority to do this. Mr. Valanzola and Mr. Vultaggio discussed what the areas of concern are, and they include the open space issue and the prohibition regarding accessory buildings. The building is 7,000 square feet and they have plenty of open space. The Board needs to determine two things, first if this proposed use is less intrusive and detrimental, and then, if it is, whether they need a special permit. Howard Fisk of 73 Spring Street has lived across the street for 50 years and is a retired firefighter. He is in support of the proposal and stated that this building needs to be fixed because if there is a fire it will take down the whole neighborhood. With it being an over 55 development, there will not be a lot of traffic or small children. Bob Saquet of 177 Old Elm Street, provided some history for the property. In 1803 the foundation and dam were put in. Solomon Pratt was the founder and it was a cotton/textile mill. Benjamin Bates learned the business and moved to Maine and started Bates College. He believed that this would be the best way to preserve an architectural challenge. Brian Tighe of 52 Spring Street stated that he has lived there since the 1970' s and this is a terrible eyesore in its current state. This project will add value to the Town and will not include children which are an expense to the school system. Doreen Tighe, formerly of 52 Spring Street, explained that she is excited about this project, and believes that Mr. Lazarra is the best developer in Mansfield, There are a lot of over-55 places especially condos, but she cannot afford them. This will be affordable and she will be able to move back into town. "--..., _...,~-^..._------_._~ , ... -..-.-.-"..-~ " MINUTES OF AUGUST 17.2010 Pa2:e 5 of 5 Steven Garneau of 45 James Street had a few concerns regarding fencing, vegetation, lighting of the parking lot, and the possibility of unrented units being sold. The Board explained that all the fencing and lighting will be discussed later on and if the rental clause is in a deed restriction, the applicant cannot change the deed. Mr. Valanzola asked the Board is need for the next meeting and they need to go over the open space calculations and Section 3.3. The hearing was continued until September 21,2010. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'fy{;;::~#k'Y---- Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk T "