Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminofzba11152011 Rr or() WIJ ,,-CEIVED I. "if [ I f:"R'"'''' OfFl -' -""-"1\,) CE 1011 JAN 2b P 3: 2S The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, M1?tMR~~rPf.h Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman; Elisabeth ~'t.~~~t;s~"; Kevin Mackie; Philip Shannon; Peter DeTrolio; Associate Members, David Luca and James Rathbun. I ," -. I S MANSFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 15, 2011 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm. I 2. Mark Cook, 424 Gilbert Street, Map 7, Parcel 81 The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Density and Dimensional Regulations of the Zoning By- law for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage, lot width and depth, per Definition Section 1.5.17a at 424 Gilbert Street, Map 7, Parcel 81 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 420/424 Gilbert Street, dated December 1, 2010 and stamped by Michael A. Trowbridge Professional Land Surveyor, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., 200 Chauncy Street, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C". A letter from the Planning Board, dated November 3, 2011, was submitted. Following discussion, with five (5) members present, the board found the lots face a significant challenge due to change in elevation and topography, lot shape and lot width. Although the applicant has not suggested it, the board found there is the potential for a multi-lot residential compound on this site and the creation of one lot would be a better alternative. The board voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application. Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc. and Bertram and Barbara Cook and Mark Cook were present. Mr. Trowbridge told the board the Walsh Well Site, which is the Town of Mansfield's public water supply, is to the right of the property and the MBTA abuts the property on the left. Mr. Trowbridge said the site is unique for several reasons. Topographically, there is a significant drop in elevation at the back of the property. There are several features that make it difficult to develop as well. The town wells are located in close proximity and the MBTA is to the left of the property. There is an existing man-made pond and the Wading River is to the back of the property. Mr. Trowbridge told the board Lot "B" was originally part of a Form A plan that was approved in 1985 by the Planning Board. Originally, Lot "B" consisted of 30,114 square feet and 120.00 feet of frontage. At that time, the remaining frontage was 43.12 feet and part of a 9.37 acre parcel. The remaining 43.12 feet of frontage has been added to Lot "B" to provide the maximum frontage possible, bringing the frontage for Lot "B" to 163.12 feet but still short of the 200.00 feet required. The lot size has been increased for Lot "8" to 60,560 square feet so that the lot conforms to the 60,000 square foot requirement. Mr. Trowbridge said developing this parcel as a one building lot would be better for the town. He said there is room for more than one lot and could be developed as a residential compound. - Mr. and Mrs. Cook have owned Lots "B" and "c" for twenty-six years and Mark Cook has owned Lot "A" for nineteen years. Ms. Garber-Miller asked if the applicant was going to combine Lots "A" and "c" to form one lot. Mr. Trowbridge said Lot "A" will be combined with Lot "e", the remaining land owned by Bertram and Barbara Cook, to comprise one buildable lot. The new lot will be approximately 8.67 acres with 50.01 feet of frontage. Lot "B" would be 60,560 square feet of area with 163.12 feet of frontage. Mr. Vultaggio said the applicant will need to submit a new plan showing the new house lots. He said the applicant will have to go before the Planning Board. Hearing ended at 7:40 pm. Mr. Mackie made the motion to approve the variance for the two lots, as shown on the plan. which will be a new revised plan showing two distinct lots as set forth on the plan. Mr. DeTro Ii 0 seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Mackie said the proposal is the best use of the property. Ms. Garber-Miller said she would rather there be only one house lot on the property. Motion passed 5-0-0. Irolamo, 45 Spring Street, Map 27, Parcel 264 The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Density and Dimensional Regulations of the Zoning By- law for the construction of an addition with less than the required rear yard setback at 45 Spring Street, Map 27, Parcel 264 in the Residential R3 (R3) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Proposed House Addition at Hse. No. 45 Spring Street in Mansfield, MA, dated October 12, 2011 and stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski, Professional Land Surveyor was labeled as Exhibit "C". A letter from the Planning Board, dated November 3, 2011 was submitted. Following discussion, with five (5) members present, the board voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on the application for 45 Spring Street because of the odd shape of the lot and because the proposed location of the addition will have the smallest impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. DeGirolamo, the homeowner, was present. Mr. DeGirolamo is requesting a variance for a 24-foot rear yard setback to construct a single-story, 22-foot by 16-foot addition. Because the house is on a slab, storage is limited; the addition would have a foundation and would provide much needed storage space. A letter dated October 27, 2011 from George and Jane MacIntyre of 52 Spring Street was submitted. The letter states they support the granting of a variance for the rear yard setback by the Zoning Board of 2 - Appeals for Tom and Tara DeGirolamo to allow construction of an addition to their home. The allowing of a rear addition to the home would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. MacIntyre have requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance to Mr. and Mrs. DeGirolamo to allow the construction of the proposed addition. Ms. Garber-Miller said there is a discrepancy on the plan. The plan shows the addition 24.9 feet and 25.4 feet from the property line but the note on the plan says a variance is requested for 24 feet. Mr. Vultaggio told Mr. DeGirolamo what he is requesting needs to be consistent with what the actual plan show. Mr. DeGirolamo said he is requesting 24 feet. Mr. Vultaggio said a revised plan showing the addition 24 feet from the rear property line will need to be submitted Ms. Garber-Miller said the addition has been placed in the center of the house. She told Mr. DeGirolamo that had he placed the addition to one side of the house, he would have eliminated one of the non- compliances completely and the other one would have been minimized to some extent. Mr. DeGirolamo said the master bedroom is located on the side of the house; people would be entering the addition through the bedroom. Mr. Mackie asked if there would be an outside stairway from the addition and if the stairs would face the back of the property. Mr. DeGirolamo said the stairs would be to the side of the addition. Mr. Vultaggio noted the existing house is non-conforming on the side yard. Hearing ended at 7:55 pm. Mr. Shannon made the motion to approve the variance from the rear yard setback, 24 feet as requested, for a single-story addition. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber-Miller said her only objection is the location of the addition. Mr. Vultaggio said the lot is an odd shape. Motion passed 5-0-0. 14. Gregory Cauldwell, 6 Stratton Road, Map 8, Parcel 8 The application is for a variance from Section 4.2.1, Density and Dimensional Regulations, of the Zoning By- Law for the construction of front steps with a roof with less than the required front yard setback at 6 Stratton Road, Map 8, Parcel 8 in the Residential R2 (R2) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and the plan, "Zoning Plan 6 Stratton Road", dated October 20, 2011 and drawn by Michael Trowbridge, Professional Land Surveyor, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., 200 ehauncy Street, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C". 3 - A letter from the Planning Board, dated November 3, 2011 was submitted. Following discussion, with five (5) members present, the board voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on the application for 6 Stratton Road, as the proposed portico will only cover an existing staircase and there will be no further encroachments into the front yard setback. Mr. Greg Cauldwell, the builder, and Mark Mina, the homeowner, were present. Mr. Cauldwell told the board he will be replacing the existing concrete steps and platform within the existing footprint; however, he said the porch has a considerable slant to it and may require an additional step to make it consistent with the building regulations. Mr. Cauldwell said the homeowner would like to build a roof over the porch. The roof will not intrude into the non-conforming space any further than the existing platform and stairs. Closest point from the bottom of the stairs to the front property line will be 25.2 feet. Mr. Vultaggio said this is a finding not a variance because the stairs are already non-conforming Mr. Cauldwell's original request was for 25.2 foot front yard setback. Mr. Cauldwell asked if he could amend the request to allow a 24.2 foot setback and to expand the existing 6.6 foot porch to 8 feet. He said this would allow for the extra step if needed and the increase in the landing would cover the overhang from the porch. Mr. Vultaggio told Mr. Cauldwell he would need to submit a plan showing the changes. After discussing the measurements of the porch and the distance to the front property line, Mr. Cauldwell requested that the original request of a 25.2 foot front yard setback be amended to allow a 23.6 foot front yard setback to make allowances for the increase in the porch landing and the possible additional stair. The board agreed and Mr. Cauldwell will submit a revised plan. Hearing ended at 8:09 pm. Mr. Mackie made a motion that the addition of the overhang to the house at 6 Stratton Road at 23.6 feet constitutes a change from a pre-existing non-conforming condition. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Mr. Mackie made a motion that the change to 23.6 ft. is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conformity. Ms. Garber-Miller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. I 5. Other Business: ~ ~ 28 Jake's Way: John Chartier, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. and Jeanne Franzen and Dave DeVito, the property owners, were present. A certified plan was submitted showing the proposed conditions, existing conditions and proposed conditions detail. Plan \\ Proposed Deck Addition at Hse. 28 Jake's Way in Mansfield, MAli, RIM Engineering Co., Inc. and stamped by Craig E. Cygawnoski, Land Surveyor, and revised October 24, 2011 4 Ms Garber-Miller, for the purposes of discussion, made a motion to approve the proposed deck addition, attaching the pool and proposed deck to the house as shown on the updated and revised plan dated October 24, 2011. Mr. DeTrolio seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber-Miller said the pool should have been installed in another location on the property. She said there were proposed ways of minimizing the encroachment by changing the location of the deck. She said the yard is already shortened because of the 40B. Because the lot is level, Ms. Garber-Miller said there was space available to put the pool and deck in another location. The proposed deck could have been put in the area between the house and the pool. Mr. Vultaggio said this lot is part of a 40B so the lots are smaller. He said the Zoning By-law does not allow a 10 foot rear yard setback. Ms. Garber-Miller said the lot has a 30 foot setback, smaller than is normally required and if the project is allowed, the setback will be 10 feet. She does not want the houses in this area to end up with 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Mr. Vultaggio said he does not want to penalize homeowners because they are in a 40B development. Ms. Garber-Miller reminded the board that at the first hearing the applicant indicated she knew about the variance requirement for the deck; she put the pool in and decided to do the deck later. Ms. Garber-Miller said this is exactly the scenario the board wants to avoid. Why should the board demand anything less from a 40B resident then any other resident in any other zone. Mr. Luca said he has failed to come up with a topography, soil or shape reason for the project; is the project allowable because the lot is already a smaller shape and is in a 40B development. Will it meet the threshold for a variance? Mr. DeTrolio said he agreed with Ms. Garber-Miller. The board has already made concessions because of the 40B. He said the board does not need to go any further; the board has already done more than it should have done. Motion denied 1-4-0. Ms. Franzen said it was very hard to position the pool on the small lot because there are underground pipes on the side of the yard. Letter from Marco Crugnale, Crugnale Properties, 2-4 North Main Street: "Where the ZBA has not taken their final action of filing a decision with the town clerk's office, I would respectfully request that you reconsider the vote that was taken on October 18, 2011and allow me to withdraw my application without judgment or prejudice." Memorandum dated November 3, 2011 from Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development: 2-4 North Main Street. Marco Crugnale would like to withdraw his application without prejudice in accordance 5 'J - with M.G.L Chapter 40A Section 16, which allows withdrawal of the application after the notification of public hearing and prior to the board's filing of the decision only with the consent of the Zoning Board of Appeals. While it is somewhat unusual for an applicant to ask for this after the close of the public hearing, it is the applicant's right to request this prior to the board's final action, which would be filing the decision with the Town Clerk. Mr. Burke said it is his understanding the applicant is in the process of revising his plans in order to resubmit a less dense proposal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Vultaggio said he feel it is appropriate if the board allows Mr. erugnale to withdraw his application because the parcel is a unique piece of property and he does not want Mr. Crugnale to have to wait two years before he can come before the board again. He said he feels Mr. Crugnale is trying to put too much into an area that is not zoned for it. Ms. Garber-Miller said if Mr. Crugnale is going to present a different proposal, then he would not have to wait the two years. Mr. Vultaggio said if the proposal is different, he would have to go back to the Planning Department. Mr. Vultaggio said if the town and the business community feel the proposal makes more sense for this area, the board needs to consider that. It is a tough spot because there is not a lot of parking and to be able to do the mix of retail and residential that is required under the By-law may be difficult. Ms. Garber-Miller said she does not feel the board would not support the right plan. She said the issue is what and how much will be put on the lot. Mr. Vultaggio said the board does not need to reconsidered the vote but can allow Mr. Crugnale to withdraw his application without prejudice so he can talk to the owner of the property and put together a new plan that would be a better fit for the property. Mr. Luca said he does not have a problem with the withdrawal of the application; clearly there is an interest that something go there, just not to that scope. Mr. DeTro Ii 0 asked if the town needed more retail; there are a lot of buildings in the downtown area that are empty. Ms. Garber-Miller made a motion that in the matter of 2-4 North Main Street, applicant Marco Crugnale, the board allow him to withdraw his application on this property without prejudice. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Luca made the motion to accept the minutes of October 18, 2011 as written. Mr. DeTro Ii 0 seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. I 6. ..AdjoUrnrnenfi 6 ,. Motion to adjourn at 8:50 pm (LucajShannon). Motion passed 5-0. Next meeting will be December13, 2011 at 7:30 pm. ~~~ Elisabe h Garber-Miller, Clerk Date ( Q . 13 . II 7