Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba06212011 TOWN OF MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 21, 2011 HECEIVED tJ1'!"rl7R" . ) i. h L ~_Cd'\S OFFICE lOti NOY 18 A lQ: 28 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, MansfieltlVMiSii:lfi3D pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Acting t!M\CN)-hYa~,H{e.~ID Mc8:kie; Philip Shannon; Peter DeTrolio; Associate Member, David Luca. 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm. I 2. Scott and KelBe Mace, 101 Otis Street The application is for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1, Lot Frontage and 1.5.17a, Lot Width, of the Zoning By-Law to create two lots with less than the required frontage and lot width at 101 Otis Street in the Residential 1 (R1) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan "Request for Zoning Variance Plan Galanti Property, 101 Otis Street, Mansfield", dated May 17, 2011, and prepared by BDO Engineering, 47-A Wilson Place, Mansfield, MA and labeled as Exhibit "C". Attorney Edward Valanzola, the applicants, Scott and Kellie Mace, and Mr. and Mrs. Galanti, the owners of the property, were present. Ms. Garber-Miller opened the meeting at 7:30 pm. She told Attorney Edward Valanzola that Mr. Vultaggio would not be present tonight and David Luca, the Associate member, would be a voting member of the boa rd. Attorney Valanzola told the board Joseph and Suzanne Galanti have lived at 101 Otis Street since 1982. The total land area to be divided is 8.36 +/- acres. The existing lot, Lot A, will be 5.85 acres and Lot B will be 2.32 acres, larger than most house lots in the town. The entire parcel has been used as a small scale farm for many years. The owners are retired and can no longer maintain and care for this large parcel. Attorney Valanzola told the board there are still farming operations conducted on the property. The applicants are Scott and Kellie Mace, the daughter and son-in-law of the owners. Mr. and Mrs. Galanti have always hoped to have their children build homes on this land. Previously, relief was granted allowing the applicants' daughter Kim Rathbun and her husband to build on land containing 87,414 square feet, located to the right of the property. Allowing the current request for relief will further minimize the size of the owner's lot and allow their daughter to be near them and assist them as necessary. If the application is approved, the lots will share a common 50 foot driveway, either a 25 foot driveway for each lot or a 50 foot wide driveway by way of easement. The 50 foot driveway would be sufficient for emergency vehicles and provide complete access to the property. Attorney Valanzola told the board there will be a tree line around the perimeter of Lot B. In areas more opened, the applicant is willing to consider, and have as a condition, that berms are put in and other trees and shrubs planted, or whatever the board deems is reasonably necessary to provide for buffering. 111I Attorney Valanzola told the board the new home on Lot B would be set back from Otis Street and there would be no visible difference when viewing the existing home and new home from Otis Street. The two new lots will comply with all zoning requirements and conform to other lots in the area. Mr. Mackie asked which is more preferential to the client, the easement for a wider driveway or a 25 foot driveway per lot. Attorney Valanzola said the easement makes more sense because it gives both property owners the right to use the 50 foot driveway. He said he is aware Ms Garber-Miller has in the past been concerned about common driveways; what happens when one of the properties is sold? The easement would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, giving both property owners, regardless who is the owner, the right to use the 50 foot driveway. The soil conditions, particularly in the wetland areas, create a hardship for this property. The odd shape of the lot and the large farm pond also create a hardship, but if the relief is granted, the proposed project will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the By-law or impact the general area. The variance can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-law. Andrew Frenette of 12 South White Pine Lane said there has been an increase in traffic since the variance was granted in 2008, enabling Mr. and Mrs. Galanti's daughter to build a home. He told the board he bought his property thinking the property abutting his could not be developed. He said until there is more information about the plan on how to preserve the tree line and/or the addition of berms, he would be opposed to the project. Michael Grady of 16 South White Pine Lane said he shares Mr. Frenette's traffic concerns. Mr. Grady told the board there is a lot of activity on the property, not all farm related. He said he would be opposed to the project until there is more information. Joseph Mangus, 20 South White Pine Lane, said he is opposed to the project. Attorney Valanzola said there is a heavy tree line along the back of Lot B and the applicant is willing to provide a buffer, a berm with the planting of hemlocks, pines and white pines along the back that would shield the entire back of the property. Attorney Valanzola said if the variance is granted, the board could make it a condition that along the entire 108 feet property line in the northwest corner of Lot A where it is opened the most, a berm would be put in along with trees to provide a buffer between the properties. Mr. Grady told the board he was concerned about the storage on the property. He said storage in the area behind his house has increased from when the Rathbun house was built. Some of the storage is farm related but he feels some materials are from the construction of the house. He said because of the shape of his property, he would be unable to plant trees to provide a buffer. Attorney Valanzola said the board could make it a condition that construction materials can not be stored behind the proposed house; while the house is being construction any materials would have to be stored in the front of the house and removed when the construction is completed. He said he realizes this is the second time the property owners have come before the board but said the applicants are willing to accommodate the abutters and the board. Mr. Frenette told the board there is no longer a buffer of trees between the Rathbun home and their neighbor because the trees were cut when the house was built and some of the trees that were planted as a buffer to provide privacy for the house in front of the Rathbun property have died. If the variance request is granted, Mr. Frenette wanted to know who would maintain the buffers to ensure their privacy. Attorney Valanzola said the board could make it a part of the decision that at all times the buffer has to be maintained by the owner of the property, with the trees at a certain height and the berm maintained at a certain width. 2 .. Mr. and Mrs. Galanti's son-in-law, James Rathbun, told the board there were never any trees around the house Mr. Frenette and Mr. Grady were concerned about. He said he put in the berm and planted trees between his house and the neighbor in front. He said some of the trees died this past winter. He was told to fertilize the trees in the spring and wait until mid June to determine which trees would need to be replaced. Any dead trees will be re-planted in the fall. A fence, requested by the neighbor, was also installed. He told the board he has done everything he was asked to do. Mr. Luca pointed out there is less than 50 feet for the driveway. He asked if the driveway would be paved. Attorney Valanzola said the driveway would be paved or gravel with crushed stone. Mr. Shannon suggested Attorney Valanzola and the applicants meet with the abutters to discuss their concerns and possible solutions. He said he does not have a problem with the project. Attorney Valanzola said he has been contacted by the abutters and there has been some discussion that land could be given to the abutters, to provide a buffer from Lot B, giving them more privacy. Ms. Garber-Miller said before the board votes for or against the project, she would like to see if the applicants and the neighbors can work out a solution that is mutually agreeable to both parties. The hearing will be continued to the July 19, 2011 meeting. Mr. Frenette said he would like the board to consider putting a deed restriction on the property, restricting the owner from anymore building. Hearing closed at 8:11 pm. I 3. Old Business: Mr. Luca made the motion to approve the minutes of May 3, May 17 and April 12, 2011. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. I 5. Adjournment Mr. Luca made the motion to adjourn at 8:35 pm. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Next meeting: July 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm. 't-€~~ t5h12:L Signature of Clerk Date of Approval 3 -