Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 05202014_201408071525Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 20, 2014 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:30 pm. Present were the following members: Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Acting Chair; David Luca, Acting Clerk; Philip Shannon; Associate Member John McKenna; Associate Member Darlene Pruitt. 1. Meeting opened at 7:30 pm. Ms. Garber Miller appointed Mr. Luca as Acting Clerk. Associate Members Ms. Pruitt and Mr. McKenna were appointed voting members for the May 20, 2014 hearings. 2. Reorganization Mr. Luca made the motion to table the reorganization of the board to June 17, 2014. 3. MMAS, Inc., 377 North Main Street, Map 22, Parcel 86. The application of MMAS, Inc. was filed for a Variance for the installation of a sign larger than allowed at 377 North Main Street (Assessor's Map 22, Parcel 86) in the Business 1 (Bl) Zone, Section 4.7.1.1. — Sign shall be no longer than 60% of the front building wall length /one square foot of sign per running front foot of a front building wall. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 3, 2014; a copy of the public hearing notice. Ken Butler and Attorney Fred Armstrong were present. Mr. Butler explained that MMAS moved to 377 North Main Street in 2004 and took over the front space in 2009 for the Black Box Theater & Morin! Gallery. He said the existing sign on the North Main Street side of the building does not stand out so people find it difficult to find the theater. He said a sign on the corner of Crocker Street and North Main Street would provide more visibility and the design of the sign, a marquee, would fits with the theater and the space. Attorney Armstrong, a member of the MMAS board, said the hardship is the shape and location of the building because it is on a corner with frontage on two streets and the goal is to create a quality sign that is big enough to identify the building from bath directions. He said because the entrance to the building is located on the corner of Crocker Street, a corner sign is needed. The existing sign will be removed. Ms. Garber - Miller feels this is really two signs versus one sign. Mr. Luca said he considers it one sign but the signs appear to be different sizes. Ms. Garber - Miller said the dimensions are different on the plans so the Board cannot approve the request for a Variance as submitted; the Board would need specific dimensions of the signs. Mr. Burns said the sign on the North Main Street will be longer than the sign over the entrance to the theater on the Crocker Street side. Ms. Garber - Miller asked about the illumination for the sign because this is a mixed residential area. Mr. Burn said the sign on the North Main Street side will have no movement and no additional lighting other than the internal fluorescent bulbs, and will be on a timer. The spot lights under the archway on the Crocker Street side are on a timer also and are turned off at 10:00 pm but if there is a show, the lights will be turned off manually once the show is over. Mr. Burns said the lettering will be changed by hand and there will be no scrolling or digital. Mr. Shannon said the plans need be changed because the dimensions of the signs are different on each plan and there is no documentation on what the lighting will be. Ms. Garber - Miller said the plan needs to be precise because the plan will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds and become part of the title. She said usually hand -drawn plans are not acceptable; the plans are submitted by the sign company. She said the Board cannot approve the Variance without the exact dimension and placement of the signs, and a lighting plan. She suggested the applicant request a continuation so the proper plans can be submitted. Attorney Armstrong said because MMAS has a very small budget, to save money, members of MMAS planned to construct the signs. Mr. Luca said the plan does not need to come from a sign company but needs to be an engineer- certified plan The hearing will be continued to the June 17, 2014 meeting. Hearing ended at 8:00 pm. 4. David Reardon and Aileen Turnbull, 78 Pleasant Street, Map 22, Parcel 30. The application of David Reardon and Aileen Turnbull was filed for a Finding from Section 3.10.46 of the Zoning By -Law for the change, extension or alteration of a non - conforming residential structure at 78 Pleasant Street (Assessor's Map 22, Parcel 30) in the Residential 3 (113) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for a Finding, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 18, 2014; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Zoning Plan ", dated March 25, 2014, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Homeowner Mr. Reardon explained he wants to remove the back wall of the house to construct a 12'x20', two -story addition to the back of the house to expand the kitchen and home office on the first floor and expand the two existing bedrooms on the second floor. The addition will be 8.1 feet and 9.8 feet from the property line where 15 feet is required. Ms. Garber - Miller noted that most of the homes in this area have been expanded. She asked if there will be an increase in the height of the home and asked about the stairs located off the deck which angle toward the property line; the stairs are not shown on the plan. Mr. Reardon said there will be no increase in the height. He said it is the original deck and the stairs are approximately 5 feet off the property line. He said the stairs could be moved to the back side of the deck. Mr. Shannon said a revised plan showing the stairs would have to be submitted. The contractor asked if the board would like the plan to show the stairs as they exist now or show the proposed location. Mr. Luca asked that the existing stairs be added to the plan and said the issue with the stairs will have no impact on the relief the applicant is seeking. He said the proposed addition will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Garber - Miller asked that the existing and proposed stairs be shown on the plan. Mr. Luca made the motion to approve the Finding for 78 Pleasant Street, subject to the applicant submitting a revised plan showing the existence of deck stairs and that the addition will result in an increase in the existing non - conformity. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Mr. Luca made the motion that increase in the non - conformity is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non - conformity. Mr. McKenna seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 8:10 pm. S. Jodice (Owners Kristin and Andre Fernandes), 31 Chessman Road, Map 3, Parcel 356. The application of Paul Jodice was filed for a Variance under Section 4.2.1, Side Yard Setback, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of an addition with less than the required side yard setback at it Chessman Road (Assessor's Map 3, Parcel 356) in the Residential 1 (R1) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 18, 2014; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Proposed House Addition at Hse. No. 11 Chessman Road in Mansfield, MA ", dated April 16, 2014, and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Paul Jodice was present, representing Kristin and Andre Fernandes. Mr. Jodice explained the applicants want to construct a 24'x24' addition on the left side of the property with the closest point 12.50' from the property line where 20 feet is required. He said the shape of the lot, the fact it is at the end of a cul -de -sac with a frontage curvature and the position of the house create a hardship for the owners. He said the addition will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Garber - Miller asked if there is a reason the applicants do not want to locate the addition on the back of the house. Mr. Jodice said there is a septic system 10 feet from the house and 20 feet off the back of the garage. He said the homeowners also plan to install an in- ground pool. Mr. Luca asked if the addition could be moved 6 feet back where it would be within the approved setback line. Ms. Garber - Miller asked if the addition could be modified to minimize the encroachment. Mr. Jodice said the applicant is trying to get as much space and build as economically as possible. Mr. Luca said the lot is basically square with 60,000 square feet. He said if this project were to be approved it would set precedent when there is an option to move the addition back. He said there is no hardship. Mr. Luca made the motion to approve the Variance from Section 4.2.1, Side Yard Setback, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of an addition with less than the required side yard setback at 11 Chessman Road (Assessors Map 3, Parcel 356) in the Residential 1 (Rl) Zone, as shown on the plan dated April 16, 2014. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said he does not feel there is a hardship to the owner because there are several alternatives for this project and the lot is square, so there is not a shape issue affecting the side of the house where the addition will be constructed. He acknowledged the addition cannot be placed on the other side of the property because of the septic system but they could locate it further back or off the back of the house where the existing deck is located. Ms. Garber - Miller agreed there are alternatives and suggested the homeowner could consider modifying the size of the addition. Because the back yard is large, she said the homeowner should explore options for using this area to accomplish what they want to do. Motion failed 0 -5 -0. Hearing ended at 8:30 pm 6. Carty, 1769 West Street, Map 2, Parcel 366. The application of James P. Carty, Jr. is for a Finding/Variance for the construction of a single - family home lacking sufficient frontage and area at 1769 West Street (Assessor's Map 2, Parcel 366) in the Residential 1 (111) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for a Finding/Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 18, 2014; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Subsurface Sewage Disposal System ", dated July 15, 2009 and revised April 8, 2014, prepared by Outback Engineering Inc. and "Clark Shores" dated May 7, 1986, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. James P. Carty, Jr and Mary Carty and Attorney Jason R. Talerman, with Blatman, Bobrowski & Mead, LLC, were present Mr. Carty explained he wants to build a three - bedroom home on land he has owned since 1986, which is part of the Clark Shores Condominium Association. The property is considered one unit, but is actually two parcels of land, Unit "M" and Unit "N" that are taxed separately by the town. He said one parcel, "Unit N ", is on an island on Greenwood Lake where an existing home burned in 2009. Mr. Carty said he does not want to re -build on the island, but would like to build a year -round home on the mainland portion of the property, "Unit M ". Attorney Talerman said although the units at Clark Shores are not considered lots, historically the town's assessor, the building department and the Zoning Board of Appeals have always treated the units as lots because Clark Shores was never recorded as a sub - division by the original developer. He said the seven units were originally cottages but over the years the cottages have become year -round homes. Attorney Talerman said Mr. Carty could have applied for a building permit under the separate lot exemption of Chapter 40A, Section 6, but after speaking with Nicholas Riccio, Inspector of Buildings and Zoning Enforcement Officer, it was decided that Mr. Carty should file for a Variance. Mr. Luca asked if there are separate deeds for units "M" and "N ". Attorney Talerman said there is one deed but is noted as 2 parcels not created through sub - division control. Mr. Luca asked if the designated common areas are owned by the unit owners. Barry Young of 1785 West Street, Unit "B" and the secretary /clerk for the Clark Shores Condominium Association, said the owners of the units own the common areas. Attorney Talerman said Mr. Carty does not wish to re -build on Unit "N ", the island portion, but would like to construct a two - story, 24'x36' house on Unit "M ", the mainland portion. Mr. Carty explained he received approval from the Board of Health in 2008 for a septic system for a two - bedroom house, but because of the economy, the project was postponed. Mr. Carty said the septic system has now been designed for a three - bedroom home. Mr. Luca asked if there are any other undeveloped parcels other than the common areas that could be used as buildable lots. Mr. Young said there are only seven units allowed in the condominium association and the remaining 20 acres are classified as re- forestation under Chapter 61A. Mr. Young said Units "M" and "N" are considered one unit by the Master Deed and Mr. Carty owns one unit that is separated by a lake. He said when Clark Shores was developed in the 1980s, the original owner had a cottage on the island but used the mainland portion for parking. Attorney Talerman said Mr. Carty has no interested in building on both parcels. Mr. Young said three weeks ago, Mr. Carty said he wanted to build a cottage on the island. If Mr. Carty no longer wishes to build a residence on the island, Mr. Young said this should be part of the minutes and any conditions if the Finding/Variance is granted. Attorney Talerman said Mr. Carty is willing to forgo construction of a dwelling on the island and to have that covenant and any additional restrictions the Association wants added to the Zoning Board of Appeals decision. Mr. Shannon noted that both parcels are on one deed and Mr. Carty, by right, is entitled to build one house Scott Freerksen of 63 Lakeview Avenue questioned Mr. Carty's ability to build on the mainland. Mr. Freerksen read a letter dated May 20, 2014 and asked that it be part of the record (See Attachment "A "). He said he agreed Mr. Carty has the right to re -build on the island property but not on the mainland. He asked the Board to take that into consideration. Christina McCarthy of 99 Lakeview Avenue said she agreed with Mr. Freerksen because she would be affected by the proposed building project. Attorney Talerman said while he understands the neighbors' concerns, there is no provision in the Master Deed that states one of the units is for parking and the island unit is the developable lot. He said when making decisions with respect to Clark Shores, the units have always been treated as lots, which they are not. Attorney Talerman said none of the lots in this development have frontage. 4 Leslie Hollinger of 1775 West Street, owner of Unit "G ", and a member of the Clark Shore Association, said she purchased her home in 1972 as a summer cottage. In 2009 when she came before the ZBA to re -build her home, she was told she could not create a new structure where there had not previously been a structure, so she re -built her home on the existing footprint. She said Mr. Carty does not have a footprint on Unit "M ", which she said is an easement to the island property. Mr. Carty said there are two common gravel driveways and Unit "M" is not considered an easement. He said it was mistakenly added to the plan. Colleen Wade of 1779 West Street, owner of Unit "E ", and a member of the Clark Shore Association, said when her septic system encroached on the common land, she had to remove and re -build the system within her unit. Mr. Shannon said Mr. Carty is not using the common land, the mainland, Unit "M ", is deeded to him. Mr. Carty said the proposed septic system and the house will be built entirely on his property. Mr. Luca asked if the two easements shown on the house plan were granted to the Condominium Association or are they considered utility easements granted to the Town of Mansfield. Attorney Talerman said he does not believe they are utility easements or part of the Condominium Association. Mr. Young agreed. Mr. Luca said a Condominium Association usually includes "restricted common areas ". He asked if the units are considered the owners personal property or considered "restricted common areas ", requiring the owners to seek permission from the association to modify their property. Mr. Young said the common area is the 20 acres of woods and the owners do not need permission to modify their own properties because the Master Deed and the Unit Deed will not be modified. Mr. Young said this is a different situation and what needs to be decided is whether Mr. Carty can built a house where no house existed. He said all the owners of Clark Shores had to prove there was a house with an existing foundation. Amy DeMelia of 1777 West Street, owner of Unit "F ", said she shares the concerns of all the neighbors. She said Mr. Carty purchased property with a house on an island and the other parcel was to be used for parking. Mr. Carty said there is nothing recorded that says the mainland parcel can be used only for parking. Attorney Talerman said from an environmental prospective, building on the island would be far less desirable. Ms. Garber - Miller said when a house is destroyed by fire, it can be re -built by right on the same footprint. Mr. Shannon made the motion to approve the Finding /Variance for the construction of a single - family home lacking sufficient frontage and area at 1769 West Street (Assessor's Map 2, Parcel 366) in the Residential 1 (Rl) Zone. Mr. McKenna seconded the motion. Discussion Mr. Shannon said the two parcels are deeded as one parcel. Ms. Garber - Miller said she does not think the condo discussion is necessarily relevant to the Board. She said Mr. Carty has the right to re -build the house on the island, Unit "N ". He has two parcels of land that are separated, and for the purposes of discussion, the Board will consider the two parcels as one unit. If he wanted to re -build on Unit "N ", he would not need the Finding /Variance. The problem is he wants to build the house on the mainland portion, Unit, "M ". Mr. Luca said he is not in favor of putting a house on Unit "M ". He noted Mr. Carty is requesting a Finding/Variance to be allowed to build a home without the required frontage, which none of the houses in this area have. Mr. Luca said Mr. Carty has the right to re -build but there is a precedent that everyone there that has ever made a modification to their property, whether they were required to come before the Board or not, had to re -build on the existing footprint. Ms. Garber - Miller said they had to use the existing footprint or preserve a portion of the original structure. Mr. Luca said while obviously a Finding /Variance could be granted in this situation, the question is where the house can be built. He feels, because of the way the whole neighborhood has been treated in the past, to be consistent the house would have to be built on Unit "N ". b7 Ms. Garber - Miller noted that a lot size of 60,000 square feet is required in a Residential 1 Zone but Unit "M" is only 16,000 square feet and Unit "N" is 21,800 square feet. Mr. Luca said Mr. Carty is only asking for relief from the required frontage for Unit "M ", so the Board should not consider how close the house will be to the neighbors other than to discuss detriment to the neighborhood. The issue before the Board is whether or not to grant the relief from the frontage requirement, and if granted, the question is can the house be constructed on either of the two units or does it have to be built on the existing footprint on Unit "N ". Ms. Garber - Miller agreed. She asked if there would be a restriction put in place that if Mr. Carty builds on Unit "M ", he forfeits his right to build on unit "N ". She said the two parcels of land are legally bound together even though they are considered two separate parcels. Mr. Luca said if Mr. Carty builds on Unit "M ", another property owner could not purchase Unit "N" because there would be no access to the property and it is clear the Condominium Association would not allow the new owner of "N" to access or park off the common area. Mr. Luca noted that there are only seven units allowed under the Master Deed, so an additional unit cannot be created. He said having a restriction would not be out of line, the applicant is in favor of the restriction. Mr. McKenna asked if it would be a hardship for the applicant to re -build on the same footprint. Mr. Luca said he does have the right to build, but the question is on which parcel. He said the Finding/Variance is for Unit "M" only and if it is denied, Mr. Carty still has the right to build on Unit "N" without coming before the Board. Mr. Luca said if this were a house lot with an easement to a road, Mr. Carty could build a home on the lot but there is common ownership of the land and you have to take into consideration the owners of the condominiums because it is private property and they are common owners. If it were an easement, they would have an absolute right to get to the lot but in this case they have a common ownership of the driveways. Ms. Garber - Miller said if Mr. Carty was demolishing an existing house, a portion of the house would have to remain but he could make the approved modifications. However, in this case, there is no existing house, the footprint is on the island portion of the unit. Mr. Luca said there is nothing on Unit "M ", so Mr. Carty would be creating something that was never there, which this Board in the past has not allowed anyone else to do. Ms. Pruitt asked where the hardship is. Ms. Garber - Miller said Mr. Carty may or may not be able to access his property at all times because he has to travel across the water. Mr. Luca explained hardships are the shape, the topography and soil conditions of a lot. He said in this case the hardship would be the shape of the lot, but Mr. Carty can still build a house on the island using the same footprint. He can come before the board if he wants to expand on that footprint, but there is no hardship requiring the house to be moved. Mr. McKenna said typically he is on the side of property owners because they should be able to do what they want with their property but this situation is unique because it is a condominium association. Motion failed, 0 -5 -0. Hearing ended at 9:10 pm. 7. Rockwell, 2 Central Street, Map 23, Parcel 121. The application of Richard Rockwell was filed for a Variance from Section 3.8.1A, Accessory Uses, Yards and Coverage, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of a shed with less than the required setback from the lot line at 2 Central Street (Assessor's Map 23, Parcel 121) in the Residential 3 (R3) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 9, 2014; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Zoning Plan 2 -4 Central Street ", dated April 8, 2014, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. 2 Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., representing Mr. Rockwell, was present. He explained the lot is surrounded by three streets, Copeland Drive, West Street and Central Street, which creates a hardship for the homeowner and limits what he can do with his property. Mr. Trowbridge said Mr. Rockwell purchased the property four years ago and has made many improvements to the house as well as building a stone wall, improving the landscaping and adding fencing along Copeland Drive. Mr. Trowbridge said the applicant is proposing to build a 12'x24' shed. The shed will be further back from Copeland Drive than the existing garage, which will be removed as part of the project. He said takings occurred on the lot when Route 140 was widened which further limits the homeowner Ms. Garber - Miller asked if the proposed shed would be larger than the existing garage. Mr. Trowbridge said the shed will be slightly larger than the garage. Mr. McKenna made the motion to approve the Variance from Section 3.8.1A, Accessory Uses, Yards and Coverage, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of a shed with less than the required setback from the lot line at 2 Central Street (Assessor's Map 23, Parcel 121) in the Residential 3 (133) Zone as shown on the plan dated April 8, 2014 and prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Discussion: Ms. Garber - Miller said the hardship is the property is bordered by three streets Mr. Luca said the lot is an odd shape and the project will be less detrimental because the shed will be further away from Copeland Drive. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 9:20 pm. 8. Michael and Alanna Morreale, 6 Marshall Avenue, Map 34, Parcel 61. The application of Michael and Alanna Morreale was filed for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Front Yard Setback, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of an addition with less than the required setback from the lot line at 6 Marshall Avenue (Assessor's Map 34, Parcel 61) in the Residential 2 (112) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for a Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on April 14, 2014; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Zoning Plan 6 Marshall Avenue ", dated March 26, 2014, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. Trowbridge of Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc. was present, representing Mr. and Mrs. Morreale. The applicant is proposing to construct a 12'x18' single -story addition off the back of the house. Mr. Trowbridge said the closest point from the addition to Fruit Street is 26.7 feet where 30 feet is required. He said the odd, triangular shape of the lot, the placement of the house and the fact it is a corner lot, requiring front yard setbacks on two streets, creates a hardship for the owner. Ms. Pruitt made the motion to approve the Variance from Section 4.2.1, Front Yard Setback, of the Zoning By -Law for the construction of an addition with less than the required setback from the lot line at 6 Marshall Avenue (Assessor's Map 34, Parcel 61) in the Residential 2 (112) Zone as shown on the plan, dated March 26, 2014. Mr. McKenna seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said the hardship is based on the shape of the lot and is relevant to the requested relief. The request is de minimis, only 3.3 feet, and the project will be not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 9:25 pm 9. Old Business: Gordon Hay, 135 Cottage Street: The application was for a Finding from Section 4.2.1, front yard setback, of the Zoning By- Law for the addition of a front porch at the pre- existing, non - conforming house at 135 Cottage Street (Assessor's Map 24, Parcel 255) in the Residential 2 (112) Zone. The hearing was continued from the February 2014 meeting. Mr. Hay explained he is replacing a smaller, pressure- treated front porch, roof and steps with a slightly larger porch at the pre- existing, non - conforming house at 135 Cottage Street which put the stairs 18" closer to the property line. The landing with stairs on the Cottage Street side of the property also needed to be built to code. Mr. Hay was asked to submit a proper plan showing the dimensions and setbacks to the property line. Mr. Hay submitted a plan, dated May 5, 2014 and prepared by Gallagher Engineering, showing both sets of stairs. Mr. Luca made the motion that the request for a Finding at 135 Cottage Street is an increase in a non - conforming condition. Mr. McKenna seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Mr. Luca made the motion that the increase in the non - conformity is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non - conformity. Mr. McKenna seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 9:30 pm. Mr. McKenna made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Revised plans were submitted tonight for the signage at 77 -79 West Street but not reviewed at the meeting. Mr. McKenna made the motion to discuss the plans at the June meeting. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. 30.Adjournment: Motion to adjourn: Luca /McKenna. Passed � l.._ David Luca, Acting Cl