Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba12142010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2010 '", The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:30 pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber- Miller, Clerk; Peter DeTrolio; Philip Shannon, Associate Member; Jeff Garr, Associate Member. 1. 109 Chauncy Street, Map 21/Lot 324 and Map 21/Lot 323- Stan Feck, Christian and Feck Development Corp. The application is for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1 and 1.5.17a of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of two duplexes with less than the required lot width, frontage and building setback at 109 Chauncy Street in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. Stan Feck, the applicant, was present. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "8"; and "Proposed Lot Division at No. 109 Chauncy Street in Mansfield, MA, dated November 8, 2010 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA" was labeled as Exhibit "C". In a letter dated November 18, 2010, the Planning Board voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on the application of Christian and Feck Development Corp. because it appears to be an effort to put a number of variances on two small lots in order to create two duplex units where they do not fit. The existing lots 21-323 and 21-324 have a unique shape that is a result of town takings in 1911 and 1954 for the purposes of widening Chauncy Street and construction of Highland Avenue Extension. These roadway takings significantly reduced the lot size and frontage on both Chauncy Street and Highland Avenue Extension compared to what was actually once owned by deed of the owner. The layout of Allen Street and abutting lots along Highland Avenue by Land Court also reduced the size of Lots 21-323 and 21-324 by what was once actually owned by deed. The relocation of Rumford River completed with the 1954 layout also limits the placement of the structures on this parcel. Enforcement of the by-law would decrease the ability to build on these lots and greatly reduce the possibilities for redeveloping lots 21-323 and 21-324 into two duplex units as allowed in this zoning district (R3). Mr. Feck told the board the houses on 21-323 and 21-324 will be demolished and the lots will be combined with 21-391 to make two lots. He said Lot 2 does not need a variance. Lot 1 needs variances for lot width, frontage and building setback. Lot 21-391 can not be built on because there is a Rumford River relocation easement on the property. Work on this parcel would involve the Riverfront Act. The proposed duplex units would be located in a similar position to the existing structures yet still be set back 30-40 feet from Chauncy Street edge of pavement; the proposed buildings would not appear any closer to Chauncy Street than what exists now. The new structures would also be more conforming than what currently exists and would create more privacy for the abutters. III' Mr. DeTrolio said he agreed with the Planning Board; there are too many variances required for the project. He said the board should not approve this project. Mr. Feck said the existing houses have more variances. Lot 1 will not require a variance and Lot 2 would require 3 variances. Mr. Vultaggio believed that the project involves taking 10 dimensional problems and reducing the variances needed to 3. Mr. Vultaggio said you have 2 houses that have multiple violations for zoning, more than the applicant is asking for. By approving the project, the board is reducing the amount of variances on the property and making it more compliant. The project is meeting all the dimensional requirements of R-3 except for the frontage of Lot 1 by 3 ft. Ms. Garber-Miller noted that most of the houses in this area are multi-family houses; this is an area where the town wants multi-family housing. The town's plan was to increase density in this area so people could walk to the train station and local services, therefore decreasing the amount of traffic. Mr. Garr asked if the project would increase tax revenue. Mr. DeTrolio said the project could possibly bring additional children to the town and that would eliminate the tax increases. Mr. Shannon observed that the 2 houses are vacant and the project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He asked if there is a possibility for additional duplexes on the property. Ms. Garber- Miller asserted that because the 3 lots are being made into 2 lots, nothing further can be added. The project is an improvement over what is presently there and is a better use of the property. Ms. Garber-Miller made the motion to grant a variance required for proposed Lot 1 at 109 Chauncy Street as per plan, dated November 8, 2010, for a variance from Section 1.5.17a for lot width, 4.2.1 for frontage and 4.2.1 for side yard setbacks. Mr. Garr seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1-0 Hearing closed at 7:55 pm. I 2. 81 Pratt Street, Map 22/Lot 60 - Paula Cannata The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to convert the existing single-family house to a two-family home on a lot with less than the required area at 81 Pratt Street in the Residential 3 (R-3) Zone. Paula Cannata, the homeowner, and David E. Marsan, Attorney at Law, were present. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan - "Certified Plot Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA, RIM Engineering Co., Inc., both dated November 1, 2010" was labeled as Exhibit "C". In a letter, dated November 18, 2010, the Planning Board voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation because it does not meet the three statutory tests for the grant of a variance. III' Attorney Marsan told the board the property consists of a corner lot at the corner of Pratt Street and Newton Street. The house is 5,200 sq. ft. with an unattached garage and the lot is 12,779 sq. ft. The house was built in 1905 and Paula Cannata has owned the house for 7 years. Ms. Cannata has done nothing to alter the lot size or shape of the parcel. Ms. Cannata has determined the best use of her property is to create a two-family home; the neighborhood consists of both multi~family homes and single-family homes. Attorney Marsan said each unit will require 7,500 sq. ft., for a total of 15,000 sq. ft. Ms. Cannata requires relief from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law to convert the existing single-family home to a two-family home. Converting the existing single-family home to a two-family home would not be out of character for the neighborhood; of the twenty-one parcels that front on Pratt Street, fourteen of these parcels are either multi-family homes or for commercial use. There will be no changes to the exterior; all changes will be made to the interior. Ms. Cannata will provide four parking spaces as required by the Zoning By~Law. Amy Tarlton of 32 Newton Street told the board she was concerned about parking, particularly overnight, on street parking, even when it is restricted. The street is an access route to 106 and there are commercial vehicles using the street. Paul Donnelly, 75 Pratt Street, asked about the number of multi-family homes in the area. Mr. Donnelly said the majority of homes are Single-family homes. Ms. Garber-Miller said the houses across Route 106 are an entirely separate neighborhood from the other side of the street, having a yvhole separate character. One side is mostly larger, single family homes, the other side multi-family homes. Mr. Donnelly asked if additional lighting would be necessary and asked if the unit could be used as an office. Mr. Vultaggio said in an R-3 zone you can have a home based business but it would require a special permit. Mr. Shannon asked how many bedrooms would be added. Ms. Cannata said she plans to either make the second floor or the attic into an apartment with 1 to 2 bedrooms. The unit would be approximately 1,000 sq. ft. She will keep the base house for herself. Attorney Marsan addressed the comments made by the abutters. He said there will be no parking on the street. The house as a multi-family dwelling will fit well with the neighborhood. Ms. Cannata will have to provide lighting for safety purposes. The abutters were concerned once the plan was approved, changes could be made. He said if any further changes were made, the applicant would have to come back before the board for approval. Ms. Garber-Miller said she has a problem with the parking; having a house with a large parking area would change the characteristics of the neighborhood - it would seem more commercial. Mr. Vultaggio said 2-family homes are right for the neighborhood. He said the only reason Ms. Cannata had to come before the board was the lot was 12,779 sq. ft., not the required 15,000 sq. ft. - Mr. DeTrolio said if the board allows this project, the whole neighborhood will consist of 2-family homes. Ms. Garber-Miller made the motion to grant a variance from Section 4.2.1 to allow for the conversion a single-family home to a 2-family home, subject to the board receiving an updated plan, stamped and certified, showing the parking configuration. Mr. Garr seconded the motion. Motion failed 2-3. Ms. Cannata asked if the decision can be appealed. She was told the decision can be appealed in court. Hearing ended at 8:25 pm. I 3. 239 Winter Street, Map 40/ParceI186- Andrew and Mileva Chmielewski Applicant has requested a continuance to January 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm. I 4. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 9:00 pm. All in favor. PASSES. Date of next meeting: January 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm. u~~~ Signatur of Clerk Date of Submission III'