Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba08162011 TOWN OF MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2011 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, ManSfi~QI,~;UJ:\~~?fK#k, Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk; Kevin Mackie; Philip Shannon; Peter DeTrolio; Associate Members, David Luca and James Rathbun. RECEIVED T" IJft' l' I ,.... I', t , ,.., V)1 i~. '.,r:" "." OFFICE ~...-.~ I;;j \ V lUll JAN 2b P 3: 2S 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm. I 2. Stephen and Christine Staples,1787 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 360. The application is for a Finding from Section 3.10.4, Non-Conforming Uses, of the Zoning By-law for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new house on a pre-existing, non- conforming lot at 1787 West Street in the Residential a (R1) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Sewage Disposal Plan for #1787 West Street in Mansfield, MA, dated June 7, 2011, revised June 29, 2011: Add Silt Fence and Buffer Zone Lines" and stamped by Ralph 1. Maloon, Registered Professional Engineer, was labeled as Exhibit "C". A Planning Board letter was not submitted. Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. and Christine & Stephen Staples, the homeowners, were present. Mr. Maloon told the board the lot is on Greenwood Lake. Mr. and Mrs. Staples would like to construct a new home and septic system on their existing non-conforming lot. The new house will be located further back from the lake than the existing house; the existing house is approximately 14 feet off the high water line, the proposed house will be 80 feet off the high water line. Mr. Maloon told the board the existing dwelling will be razed. The existing cesspool is in the water table; it will be abandoned and replaced with a new septic system. The new system will be farther back from the lake. Mr. Maloon said these changes will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and will not create any additional non-compliance issues. Barry Young of 1785 West Street said the project will be an improvement. He told the board there are seven existing houses, all owned individually as condominiums. He said the land is owned jointly by the homeowners and Clark Shores Condo Association. He said a gravel driveway serves the seven houses and is maintained by the condo association. The proposed project will not create any additional non-conformity but will increase the existing non- conformity. The board determined the frontage runs along the eastern border of the property and the only non- conformity is the rear yard. Mr. Vultaggio said he would like a note added to the plan stating the front - yard will be the east side of the property. He asked Mr. Maloon to submit an amended plan to show the location of the front yard and the distance from the proposed house to the rear lot line. Hearing closed at 7:55 pm. Mr. Mackie made the motion to grant a finding that the building of this new house constitutes an increase in the current non-conformity of the rear yard setback. Ms. Garber-Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Mackie made the motion that the increase in the non-conformity of the rear yard setback is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current situation. The dimensions from the existing dwelling to the rear yard are to be added to the plan and a notation made that the front yard runs along the easterly side of the graveled area, per the plan. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 3. Christiari&e I:>evelopment Corp., 109-111 Chauncy Street, Map 21, Parcels 323..3:2.5. The application is for a Variance from Sections 4.2.1, Lot Area and 3.1, General Provisions, of the Zoning By-law for the construction of two duplexes with less than the required lot area and with a common driveway at 109-111 Chauncy Street in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA, dated July 11, 2011 and stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski, Professional Land Surveyor, was labeled as Exhibit "C", Stan Feck, the property owner, was present. A Planning Board letter was not submitted. The Variance is for the following: Zoning By-law Section 4.2.1 lot area required for duplex lot 7,500 square feet per unit = 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting relief from the 15,000 square foot requirement for Lot 1, 10,375 square feet, and Lot 2, 11,041 square feet. The application also seeks to allow the use of a common driveway for the two lots. On February 9, 2011, variances were granted for the following: Zoning By-law Section 1.5.17 for Lot width - width requested for Lot 1, 75.55 square feet, 80 feet from Highland Avenue; Zoning By-law Section 4.2.1 Lot Frontage - frontage requested for Lot 1, 75.95 square feet on Highland Avenue; Zoning By-law Section 4.2.1 Front Yard Setback - setback requested for Lot 1, 15 feet from Chauncy Street layout line. Mr. Feck said there were two existing houses on the site. He said after removing the structures he was able to get a much better feel of how the new structures would look within the area. He said he was not satisfied with the original plan presented for the first Variance. The old plan shows one duplex facing Chauncy Street and one facing Highland Avenue with two driveways existing onto Chauncy Street. This plan would utilize the third parcel in the back. The new plan will require further zoning board approval. On the new plan, dated July 11, 2011, the two houses would front each other with a common driveway off Highland Avenue, eliminating the Chauncy Street driveway. Mr. Feck said the new plan, if approved, is a much better plan, providing 2 It T better setbacks from the rear and side yards. He said removing the driveways from Chauncy Street would allow for safer access from Highland Avenue. It would create more private usable rear and side yards, resulting in less impact to the abutters and allow for more defined lot lines. The new plan would provide more protection of the riverfront area located on the back parcel. Mr. Feck told the board the three-piece parcel of land was part of an estate. Mr. Feck had the land under agreement to buy, subject to the approval of the first Variance. He said he has never been able to get clear title of Lot 3 from the estate; the parcel is registered land requiring deeds to be approved by land court. He said registered land can not be subdivided without land court approval. Land court approval can take a year or more to receive and he has been unable to begin this process due to the probate flaw on the title. Mr. Vultaggio asked Mr. Feck what part of the three-piece parcel he owns. Mr. Feck said the new plan shows what he actually owns; he does not own Lot 3. Mr. Vultaggio said the application meets all dimensional requirements with the new plan proposed except the lot frontage. He said Lot 1 would be considered a corner lot. Mr. Vultaggio said the new plan has to comply with the first Variance. The problem is the recitation on the old plan and the actual numbers on the new plan do not agree. Mr. Feck will need to correct these numbers. The corrected plan should be changed from 80.22 - 54.08 to 80.00 - 54.30 to fix the miscalculation on the new plan. The first variance does not need to be touched. The only new variance the board needs to consider is the fact Mr. Feck eliminated parcel 3 and instead of including Lot 3 to calculate lot area, he is reducing the lot sizes, the first lot to 11,041 square feet and the second lot to 10,375 square feet instead of the 15,000 square feet per lot required. The lot width of Lot 1, 80 feet, stays the same. Brian Keenan of 18 Highland Avenue said he supported Mr. Feck's plans. Ms. Garber-Miller asked what the minimum driveway requirement was. Mr. Feck said common driveways are usually 12 feet. Hearing closed at 8:30 pm. Mr. Mackie made the motion to grant a Variance for the two properties at 109-111 Chauncy Street per plan with the stipulation that the plan will be updated with the correct map and the description of the Variance and the text and grant a Variance for the shared driveway between the two said lots. Ms. Garber-Miller seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Vultaggio said Mr. Feck will make the revisions to the numbers on the new plan. He said the Variance is for the square footage - 10,375 square feet and 11,041 square feet per lot and the common driveway. The old variance covers Lot 1 - lot width and depth; the new variance deals with the required 15,000 square feet and the common driveway and eliminates the third lot. Mr. Shannon asked if the address would change from Chauncy Street to Highland Avenue because the 'driveway will be on Highland Avenue. Mr. Vultaggio said the address may change but this is not a Zoning Board issue. Ms. Garber-Miller: There were two duplexes there before and there will be two duplexes now, consistent with the area. She said she ordinarily does not like shared driveways but in this case it is much safer to have egress and ingress off Highland Avenue. There are separate parking areas so the 3 .. driveway will not be blocked for safety purposes or emergency vehicle access. She said visually the lots are nicer and a better shape. Mr. Mackie said the only difference is the location of the driveway, the lots are the same. Motion passed 5-0-0. 4. Stephe gham, 43-47 High Street, Map 21, Parcel 139. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Rear Yard Setback, of the Zoning By-law for the demolition and reconstruction of a pre-existing, non-conforming duplex with less than the required rear yard setback at 43-47 High Street in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Proposed Building Location Plan 43-47 High Street in Mansfield, MA, dated July 13, 2011 and stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski, Professional Land Surveyor, was labeled as Exhibit "C". Stephen Cunningham was present. A Planning Board letter was not submitted. The property is owned by the Church of St. John the Evangelist. Mr. Cunningham told the board the property has recently been divided; the church is on one lot and an existing house is on the second lot. He told the board when the church purchased the house in 1955 it was a two-family home but had also been used as a school. Mr. Cunningham said the building was inspected and found to be structurally unsound. He said the building will have to be torn down. He said the church would like to put a duplex on the lot and are asking for a variance for the rear yard setback; the duplex would be 19.7 feet from the rear property line. Mr. Vultaggio told Mr. Cunningham he is asking for a variance for something that is non-conforming. The original house is already too close to the rear yard. He said the filing should have been for a Finding. Mr. Cunningham asked if the duplex could be moved forward on the lot, eliminating the need for the Finding. Mr. Vultaggio said if the duplex is moved forward, it would encroach on the current non- conformance of the front yard. Mary Ann McMullin of 138 Rumford Avenue asked why the applicant would be allowed to construct so close to the river. She said it is a very small lot for such a big house and would be closer to her property line. Mr. Vultaggio told Ms. McMullin the duplex would be further from her property line but closer to the river. The original house is 10 feet from the lot line and 49 feet from the river; the new house would be 20 feet from the lot line but would be closer to the river, approximately 37 feet. He told her the applicant would have to file with Conservation. Ms. Garber-Miller questioned whether there is enough lot area for a duplex; 7,500 square feet are required per unit or 15,0000 square feet of lot area. The lot size is 8,737 square feet. Mr. Vultaggio told Mr. Cunningham he will need a Finding for the rear yard and a Variance for the lot area. 4 Mr. Vultaggio told Mr. Cunningham will have to establish the original home was used as a two-family home before the church purchased the property; if the house was never used as a two-family, Mr. Cunningham will have to amend the filing to request a variance from the 15,0000 square feet lot area required. Ralph Maloon said the property is currently listed as a two-family home by the Town Assessor. Mr. Vultaggio said the hearing should be continued and suggested Mr. Cunningham research the assessor's records to see when the two-family was created; was it always considered a two-family home? He told Mr. Cunningham the building department might also have information. The hearing was continued to September 20, 2011. The hearing ended at 9:10 pm. 101 Otis Street: Attorney Charles Mulcahy told the board Attorney Edward Valanzola, the applicants representative, would like the board to make a motion under 40a 16 to withdraw the application for 101 Otis Street without prejudice. Mr. Mackie made the motion to withdraw the application for 101 Otis Street without prejudice, according to Chapter 40 a, Sub-Section 16. Ms. Garber-Miller seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Vultaggio said there will not be a refund of the application fees. Ms. Garber-Miller amended Mr. Mackie's motion that fees paid will not be returned. Mr. Shannon seconded the amended motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Donna M. Snow and Donna J. Peck, 438 School Street, Map 12, Parcel 50. Donna Snow was present. The applicant requested a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Rear Yard Setback, of the Zoning By-Law Frontage and 1.5.17a, Lot Width, of the Zoning By-Law for a deck expansion that will result in less than the required rear yard setback at 438 School Street in the Residential 1 (Rl) Zone. The hearing was continued from the July 19, 2011 meeting because a site plan was not submitted with the application and there were issues with the conservation land in the rear of the property. The application is for a Variance to expand the existing deck six feet towards the rear property line. The rear property line is bordered by town-owned land and DEP wetlands. A new plan was submitted: "Zoning Plan 438 School Street", dated July 20, 2011, and stamped by Michael A. Trowbridge, Registered Professional Land Surveyor. The board reviewed the new plan. Mr. Vultaggio said the existing deck already encroaches into the rear yard setback, therefore this application should be a Finding. 5 ... Ms. Garber-Miller made the motion that the proposed deck is an increase in the existing non- conformity . Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Garber-Miller made a motion that the increase in the non-conformity is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. The Selectmen have asked Mr. Vultaggio to an Executive Session with Town Council, regarding 190 Mill Street. Mr. Vultaggio said he did not feel he could be an advocate for the board because he did not vote in favor for the decision. He feels it is more appropriate for other members who were part of the affirmative decision to be there. Kevin Mackie and Philip Shannon said they would both go to the meeting. Mr. Vultaggio suggested they call Nick Riccio to let him know they will be attending the meeting and to get a meeting time. Mr. Vultaggio said the meeting will be August 20, 2011. Matthew Quinn of 26 Donald Allen Drive withdrew his application without prejudice for a side yard setback. He has asked that the fee be reimbursed since the incomplete application should never have been accepted. Ms Garber-Miller said the application lists exactly what you need to submit when filing. Ms. Garber-Miller made the motion to deny Mr. Quinn's request to return his $150.00 filing fee. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. The board signed the 220 Plain Street decision. Mr. Mackie made the motion to approve the July 21, 2011 minutes. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 6. Adjourn Mr. DeTrolio made the motion to adjourn. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Next meeting will be September 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm. -ez~~~ Signature of Clerk 1[2./3.// Date 6 -