Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba10182011 ~. 'OJ HECE1VEO MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I tJ'i'!N CLERf\S OFFICE MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 2011 2011 NOY 18 A 10: 28 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mal)S~~I~\N~Ki~tLjbo pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman'; I tJ~ab~~tN3~JrTMil/er, Clerk; Philip Shannon; Peter DeTrolio; Associate Members, David Luca and James Rathbun. 11. Meetingcal/edtoorder at 7:30 pm. 2. Edward and Stephanie Valanzola, 1 Old Stable Drive, Map 41, Parcels 129, 374 and 51S. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Frontage and Area; and Section 1.5.17a, Lot Width, of the Zoning By-law for the creation of one new lot at Map 41, Parcels 129, 374 and 518. The existing 46 Old Stable Drive, Lot 2, requires variances for frontage and lot width and area. The newly created lot, Lot 1, requires variances for frontage and lot width. These lots are located in the Residential R1 (R1) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Zoning Plan Old Stable Dr./Kerry, dated September 13, 2011 and stamped by Michael Trowbridge, Professional Land Surveyor was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board. David Luca was appointed as a voting member. Mr. and Mrs. Valanzola, the applicants, were present. Jacqueline McLacklan of 46 Old Stable Drive and David Francescon of 66 Kerry Drive and the owner of Lot A and B, were also present. Mr. Valanzola told the board he and his wife have been looking for a parcel of land to build a new house. A 74,687 square foot parcel of land, owned by David Francescon and located behind 46 Old Stable Drive, has become available but has no frontage. Mrs. McLachlan's house lot (Lot 122) is primarily frontage, approximately three hundred feet of frontage, and is an irregularly shaped lot that would not conform to current zoning requirements. If the second lot had been created when the other house lots on Old Stable Drive were developed, it would have complied with the zoning by-laws. By acquiring 16,637 square feet of Mr. Francescon's land, Lot B, Mrs. McLachlin's lot will go from 30,005 square feet to 34,515 square feet, making the lot more rectangular in shape and more consistent with the other lots in the neighborhood. He said the dimensional zoning requirements would be improved by the creation of the new lot, Lot 2. Lot 1 would be 70,171 square feet, with 153.88 ft. of frontage and 12,127 square feet of land, gained by \ taking the frontage and land from Lot 122, now Lot 122-A. This lot will be consistent with the other lots on Old Stable Drive; the lot size will exceed what is currently required by the by-law. Mr. Valanzola told the board the lots in the sub-division have a minimum of 120 feet of frontage and a minimum area of 30,000 square feet. 111I Mr. Valanzola said the requirements for a hardship have been met. Because of the shape of Lot 2 (Lot 122), most of the land to the left of the house at 46 Old Stable Drive is unusable. The new back yard created by the new rectangular shaped lot, with an increased square footage from 30,005 square feet to 34,515 square feet, eliminates the hardship. Lot A consists of 58,050 square feet and is also an odd shaped parcel. If it is added to the new Lot 1 (Lot A and Lot 122-A) and Lot 2 (Lot Band 122-B), the two new lots will conform with the intent of the zoning by-laws. Lot C, which Mr. Francescon also owns, is not part of this filing. The relief requested 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 following variances are requested for Lots 1 and 2: Section 4.2.1 - Frontage Requirement: Lot 1, 153.88 feet; Lot 2, 140.00 feet. Section 1.5.17c - Lot Width: Lot 1, 153.88 feet; Lot 2, 140.00 feet. Section 4.2.1 - Area Requirement: Lot 2, 34.515 square feet. The variance can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-law. The new configuration of Lot 1 and Lot 2 will bring both lots closer to compliance with the by-laws. Steven Candela of 55 Old North Trail and Greg Marcotte of 51 Old Stable Drive wrote letters in favor of the request. Both said they had reviewed the plans and are supportive of the requested variances. The variances will create lots that are consistent with all of the other lots on Old Stable Drive. 46 Old Stable Drive is a very odd shaped lot with twice the required frontage. Both said the land behind this property should have been included in the original development. Michael Wolfe of 47 Old Stable Drive wanted to know how the new home would fit into the neighborhood in terms of being consistent with the original intent of the development Mr. Valanzola said there is a deed restriction, restricting what can or can't be done in the development. Hearing ended at 7:48 pm. Ms. Garber-Miller made the motion to grant a variance under Section 4.2.1 for Lot 1 as to the frontage and lot width requirements as shown on the plan. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber-Miller said the two lots taken together will be an improvement; currently there are issues with dimensions and the shape of the lots, especially the shape of Lot 1. The proposed plan will improve the shape of Lot 1, making it more consistent with the lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Vultaggio said it would allow the use of a landlocked parcel. 2 .... Mr. Luca said the hardship is clearly met and it cleans up both lots. Mr. DeTrolio said he had no problems with the proposal. Motion passed 5-0-0. As to Lot 2, Ms. Garber-Miller made a second motion to grant the variance under 4.2.1 as to the area requirement and frontage requirement and 1.5.17a for lot width and redraw the dimensions of the lot as to the plan because this will improve the dimensions of the lot. Although it will still be short on the area of frontage and width, the lots will have more area and the frontage will be consistent with the other lots in the area Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. 13. MarcoCrugnale;<Crugnale Properties, 2-4 North Maih Street, Map 21, tots 178 and17Q. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.2, Floor Area Ratio, for the construction of an ll-unit residential condominium building at 2-4 North Main Street in the Business 2 (B2) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Conceptual Development Plan for: Residences at the South Common", dated September 9, 2011 and drawn by Annino Associates, was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board. Mr. Rathbun was appointed as a voting member. Mr. Crugnale, the applicant. told the board the property is comprised of two lots, Lots 178 and 179, combined for a total of 19,715 square feet, at the intersection of North Main Street and West Street in a B2 Zoning District. The property is currently a gravel yard. At one time, the lot had a three-story building which contained a retail dry cleaner, offices and a residential apartment. The site is bordered to the west by West Street, to the south by North Main Street, to the east by a 6- unit condominium building and to the north by a residential dwelling. The South Common and Mansfield Town Hall are located west of West Street. Mr. Crugnale explained the proposed building will be three stories, approximately 26,067 square feet, with eleven (11) townhouse-style residential condominiums. He said parking will be provided in two-car garages beneath each of the proposed condominiums and each unit will have an additional parking space. The two corner units will each have a two-car garage at the back of the lot. There will also be four guest parking spots. Mr. Crugnale is requesting a variance from the maximum floor area ratio requirements, which is 0.5 for residential uses in a B2 zone. The property has a total land area of 19,715 square feet. Based on the area, a building with floor area of 9,857 square feet is allowed by right. Mr. Crugnale is requesting a variance to allow for 26,067 square feet of floor area, or a floor area of 1.33. 3 ... Mr. Crugnale said the lot was formerly developed with a commercial building and contains urban fill that is unique and not found throughout the zoning district. He said the lot is polygonal with the westerly property line narrower than the easterly property line along North Main Street. He said the odd shape is the result of a taking by the Town of Mansfield to allow for the widening of the street at the intersection of North Main Street and West Street. Without the variance, Mr. Crugnale said the redevelopment of the property would not be financially feasible. He said if he was to bring a commercial aspect to the project, there would be no on-street parking. It is a very busy intersection and a mixed use building would increase the traffic more than the eleven (11) residential units. Mr. Crugnale said this project would be a nice addition to the South Common. He has created a break in the building so it is not just a row of houses; there is a court yard to walk through and a lot of greenscape. He said the building is more in line with Fulton Court Condominiums next to the lot. Mr. Vultaggio asked if there was any affordable housing requirement; Mr. Crugnale said one unit would be required. He said he had spoken to Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development, about transferring the affordable housing unit to another project he is doing in town. Mr. Rathbun asked about the setback from the sidewalk. Mr. Crugnale said the building will be about two feet off the sidewalk. He said he will put additional trees in this area. Carla Simones, representing Faith Fellowship United Methodist Church of 9 North Main Street, told the board the church executive board met last month and reviewed the project. The church is in favor of the project because they feel it will help with the tax base and bring people downtown. Joyce Niemi of Ware Street asked Mr. Crugnale if the condominiums have been sold. Mr. Crugnale said the units would not be sold until the plan has been approved. She asked if a Master Deed and a Declaration of Condominium Trust have been done; Mr. Crugnale said the property is under agreement and those documents will be prepared once the project is built and will become part of the plan. Mr. Crugnale told the board the property currently generates less than $4,000.00 in tax revenue. Once built, the condominiums would create revenue of over $40,000.00 in property taxes. He said the site is self-contained and because the units have only two bedrooms, there would be minimal impact to the school system. Mr. DeTrolio asked about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Crugnale said he has spoken with the Fire Department and there will be access from three sides of the property, including a two-lane road for entrance to the site. He said access to the site would also be reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Shannon asked if there is a height restriction. Mr. Crugnale said a four-story building would be allowed on the site. Ms. Garber-Miller was concerned about the view from South Common; she said it would be nice for the residents in the units to look out on the common but the people in the park will not want to look at a brick wall. She asked if Mr. Crugnale could add more to the landscaping. Hearing ended at 8:04 pm. 4 .,. Ms. Garber-Miller made the motion to approve the request for a variance under 4.2.2, Density and Dimensional Regulations, Floor Area Ratio for the proposal per plan at 2-4 North Main Street. Mr. Rathbun seconded. Discussion: Mr. Vultaggio said there is no reason to approve the plan; it does not meet the requirements because it is not the intended use of the property. He said if the town wanted to change the by-law to allow for this use in this area, then it would. It is not there to have a concentrated area of condominiums. It is there for mixed business. He said he did not see where this proposal was better than the last one that came before the board. Ms. Garber-Miller said this proposal is more creative in terms of having separate blocks of units rather than simply being a square building. She said it just seems to be a lot of stuff on a very small space. Mr. Luca said the proposal does not meet the hardship threshold. Motion failed 0-5-0. 4. Old Busines David Luca was appointed a voting member. 28 Jake's Way: Jeanne Franzen and Dave DeVito, the property owners, were present. The board continued the hearing at the September meeting so the distance of the pool and the proposed deck from the rear property line could be clarified. Measurements were to be taken from the closest point of the existing deck to the rear property line. Ms. Garber-Miller had also suggested the applicant consider relocating the proposed deck to the area between the existing deck and pool, making the proposed project less intrusive as far as the By-law is concerned. Because 28 Jake's Way is in a 40B subdivision, Mr. Vultaggio wanted to talk with Nicholas Riccio, Inspector of Building and Zoning Enforcement Officer, to make sure all decks in the subdivision were legally built. Mr. Vultaggio said he had spoken with Mr. Riccio; Mr. Riccio checked some of the decks in the sub-division and said they looked good. Ms. Garber-Miller said the board had already decided the existing deck was illegal; the deck would not be grandfathered in. The deck is supposed to be thirty-feet from the rear property line. The measurements on the new plan are not correct; the legend measurements do not match the measurements of the main plan. Mr. Vultaggio said the plan needs to be corrected. Ms. Garber-Miller said she still has an issue with the location of the proposed deck. The applicant was told if she did not attach the proposed deck to the house and existing deck she would not have a zoning issue with the new deck. A detached deck would have to be five feet from the property line and ten feet from the existing deck. 5 'III Mr. Luca said it appears as if the house is not set straight on the property. He asked that measurements be taken from both sides of the house to the rear property line to get a correct measurement. Mr. Vultaggio said the pool is located too close to the house and the existing deck; the pool should be at least ten feet from the house and deck. The applicant said when she applied for the building permit for the pool; the measurements were taken from the foundation. Mr. Vultaggio said the measurement should have been from the deck because it is part of the house. Mr. Vultaggio said the issues with the location of the pool and the existing deck need to be cleared up because this could cause problems if the house is sold. Mr. Vultaggio said the hearing could be closed and a decision made regarding the proposed deck or the board could defer a decision until the plan can be corrected. The applicant needs to go back to RIM Engineering to correct the plan - the measurements on the legend and the main plan need to be the same and measurements need to be taken from both sides of the house and deck to get the dimensions from the closest point to the rear property line. He also will talk with Mr. Riccio again. The hearing will be continued to November 15, 2011. The board signed the decisions for 329 Franklin Street (Variance), 60 Pine Street (Finding) and 8 Pheasant Hollow Drive (Variance). Mr. Luca made the motion to accept the minutes of September 20, 2011 and June 21, 2011 as written. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. I 7. Adjournmerlt: Mr. Luca made the motion to adjourn at 9:20 pm. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Next meeting will be November 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm. . c~~f2L~~~ Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk Date 6 ...