Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_061912Zoning Board of Appeals R'Et�EI`JE0 June 19, 2012 1 tl'N'H Cl_FRAKS OFFICE MINUTES 2012 JUL 20 A 9 36 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:45 pm. Present at the hearing were the following members: Elisabeth Garber�(lir 1Xc; Leh Mansfield, na Kevin Mackie, Clerk; David Luca; Philip Shannon; Associate Member John IvtcKeri' 1. Meeting was called to order at 7:45 pm. Ms. Garber - Miller was Acting Chairman and Mr. Mackie was Clerk for this meeting. 2. Jeanne Franzen, 28 Jake's Way, Map 32, Parcel 211. The application is for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, rear yard setback, of the Zoning By -Law to construct a detached deck at 28 Jake's Way in the Residential 1 (111) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B and the plan 'Proposed Deck Addition at HSE. No. 28 Jake's Way in Mansfield, MA ", dated May 16, 2012, signed and stamped by Craig E. Cygaawnoski, P.L.S., RIM Engineering Co., Inc., 150 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 was labeled at Exhibit "C ". The homeowner, Ms. Franzen, was present. There was no Planning Board letter. Associate Member Mr. McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing Ms. Franzen told the board the Building Inspector did not want to issue a permit for the new configuration of the deck until she went before the board to clear the pool. She said the pool permit was issued in error; it should have been ten (10) feet from the house. Ms. Franzen said the distance from the house to the pool was measured from the foundation of the house. Because the deck is attached to the house, the measurement should have been taken from the deck. Ms. Franzen said the pool was not inspected before the permit was issued. Mr. Mackie said the proposed deck is not the concern here, it is the pool. The pool is only 4.1 feet from the deck and should have been a minimum of ten (10) feet. Ms. Garber- Miller said the pool was installed on the narrowest part of the property. Ms. Franzen explained there is a storm drain at the widest portion of the property, making it impossible to locate the pool in this area. She said the drain was put in when the sub - division was being built because of flooding. Mr. Luca said he believes the wrong section of the by -law was cited in the application. The applicant is asking for a Variance from the rear yard setback. He read Section 3.8.1 Yards and Coverage - a detached accessory building may be erected in the rear yard area at least ten (10) feet from the principal building and at least five (5) feet from any side or rear lot line would cover the deck. The proposed deck is 5.2 feet from the rear property line and therefore does not require a variance. Zone R1 40B Subdivision approved setbacks are front 25 feet, side 10 feet and rear 30 feet. Mr. Shannon said he agreed with Mr. Luca. He said Ms. Franzen followed the proper channels for the installation of the pool; she applied for a building permit and a permit was issued for the pool installation. Mr. Mackie said the Building Inspector will not issue a permit for the detached deck until the pool, which is too close to the house, is cleared. Mr. Luca made the motion to allow, as per the plan dated May 16, 2012, the existing above - ground pool to remain within 4.1 feet of the pre- existing deck as per Section 3.8.1 A of the Zoning By -law. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber - Miller noted there is a proposed addition of a 5'xS' deck off the existing deck; this additional deck is 10.1 feet from the proposed pool deck. Mr. Mackie said the pool was installed by the homeowner in good faith and based on the description of the property there was no other location for the pool. Mr. Luca said if the homeowner were to remove the pool, the deck as proposed would not require relief from the zoning by -law. Even if the proposed deck is not built, the pool is too close to the house. He said, when making the motion, the intent was that the existing deck and house not move any closer to the above - ground pool, that the existing deck not be expanded. Ms. Garber- Miller said the existing deck and pool are fine and they have permits for both. The hardship is the storm drain. The drain prevented the installation of the pool on the larger portion of the lot. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 8:05 pm. 3. Joe and Kmberly Mulkern, 76 Williams Street, Map 10, Parcel 7. The application is for a Variance from Sections 4.2.13.0 and 3.1 of the Zoning By -law to create two lots with less than the required frontage, width and depth and to allow a shared driveway at 76 Williams Street in the Residential 1 (Rl) Zone. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A ", a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B and the plan, "Zoning Plan Williams Street, dated May 12, 2012, signed and stamped by Michael A. Trowbridge, R.P.L.S, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., 200 Chauncy Sheet, Mansfield, MA 02048. was labeled at Exhibit "C ". There was no Planning Board letter. Associate Member Mr. McKenna was appointed a voting member for this hearing. Mr. Mulkern was unable to attend tonight's meeting and his representative had a scheduled meeting. ' l _ 1 Ms. Garber - Miller said typically the board's policy is if someone misses a meeting and they have notified the board there is a problem, the board continues the hearing for at least one meeting. Mr. Mackie read the e -mail from Jack Vultaggio dated June 19, 2012 concerning the Mulkern hearing. The attorney from Gully & Straccia representing abutters Donald and Ann Marie Cottage of 89 Williams Street asked that his objection that the hearing has not been reported in the paper and that the applicant and his representative failed to appear and no action was taken be noted in the minutes. Ms. Garber- Miller asked for a motion to continue the hearing for 76 Williams Street until such time the applicant or his representative can be present. Mr. Mackie made the motion to continue the hearing for 76 Williams Street until July 17, 2012. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. 4. JAB Construction LLC, 47 High Street, Map 21, Parcel 139. The applicant or representative were not present. Mr. Shannon made the motion to continue the hearing for 47 High Street to July 17, 2012. Mr. Mackie seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. The applicant will be called. 5. Other Business Mr. Luca made the motion to approve the minutes of June 5, 2012. Mr. McKenna seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. The board signed the decision for 60 Old Stable Drive. The decision for 11 Bonney Lane was not signed - the board needed additional paperwork - a certified plot plan showing the location of the sign and the setbacks from the roadway, and a description of the lighting. 6. Adjournment Motion to adjourn - Shannon /Luca at 8:30 pm. NEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 17, 2012 AT 7:30 PM. &m-���� 7 r7 r Elisabeth Garber - Miller Date 7