Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA_05052015_201508201406Town of Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals May 5, 2015 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:30 pm. Present were the following members: Kevin Mackie, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber - Miller, Clerk; David Luca; Philip Shannon; Associate Member Matthew Cummings; Associate Member Aaron Gallagher. 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm. 2. Myles & Sheila Bristowe, 147 High Street, Map 21, Parcel 131 The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Myles & Sheila Bristowe for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 for relief from the minimum required land area per unit where 15,000 square feet is required and 12,076 square feet is provided; and for a Finding from Section 3.10.413 for the alteration of a pre- existing, non - conforming structure with an existing 20.6 -foot front yard setback where a 30 -foot front yard setback is required at 147 High Street (Map 21, Parcel 131) in the Residential 3 (133) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's office March 18, 2015; a copy of the public hearing notice; "Zoning Plan 147 High Street ", dated March 16, 2015 and revised April 3, 2015 and May 6, 2015, prepared by Hutchins- Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. Mackie appointed Associate Member Aaron Gallagher as a voting member for this hearing Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., explained the house was built in 1880 as a two - family home, but was converted to a single - family home in 2003. The applicants would like to return the house to a two - family, but because they abandoned the two - family use, they will need a Variance from Section 4.2.1 for relief from the minimum required land area per unit where 15,000 square feet is required and 12,076 square feet is provided; and a Finding from Section 3.10.46 to remove and replace the existing front steps with a 6'x10'portico with steps, which will result in a 20.6 - foot front yard setback where a 30 -foot front yard setback is required. A second set of stairs will be constructed on the left side of the house, 28.8 feet from the side yard property line where 15 feet is required, to provide egress for the second floor unit. Mr. Trowbridge said the neighborhoods of High, Central, and Dean Streets consist of older homes with a mixture of single - family and two - family homes. Two- family homes are an allowed use in an R3 Zone. Mr. Mackie asked that a revised plan be submitted showing the dimensions of the existing steps. Ms. Garber - Miller asked if the portico and steps are the only exterior change. Mr. Trowbridge said there will be no additional changes to the exterior of the building; the majority of changes will be interior work. 1 Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion to approve the application of Myles & Sheila Bristowe for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 for relief from the minimum required land area per unit where 15,000 square feet is required and 12,076 square feet is provided at 147 High Street (Map 21, Parcel 131) in the Residential 3 (113) Zone, subject to the submittal of a final plan showing the dimensions of the existing steps. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber - Miller said the proposed exterior changes are minor and consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Mackie noted it is an existing structure. Mr. Gallagher said the house is being converted back to the original two - family home. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion that the proposed changes, a portico and steps resulting in a 20.6 - foot front yard setback where a 30 -foot front yard setback is required, represents an increase in a pre- existing, non - conforming condition. Mr. Luca seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion that the proposed increase in the pre- existing, non - conforming condition, in accordance with the plan, "Zoning Plan 147 High Street ", dated March 16, 2015 and revised April 3, 2015 and May 6, 2015, prepared by Hutchins - Trowbridge Associates, Inc., is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber - Miller said a second set of steps is need for safety. Mr. Mackie noted the reconfiguring of the front steps is a minor change. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 7:45 pm. 3. T- Mobile Northeast LLC, 127 North Main Street, Map 24, Parcel 45. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of T- Mobile Northeast, LLC Trust for a Variance /Special Permit under Section 3.10.4A of the Zoning By -Law to change, extend or alter a pre- existing, non - conforming structure or use by modifying a pre- existing, non - conforming wireless communications facility mounted on the rooftop at 127 North Main Street in the Business 1 (B1) Zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's office March 31, 2015; a copy of the public hearing notice; "T- Mobile Northeast LLC ", Site Number: 4PR0438C, Site Name: PR438 /Wheeler Building, T- Mobile 70OMHZ Installation, Design 70207, 2 127 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 Bristol Count", dated January 26, 2015, revised February 13, 2015, February 23, 2015 and March 30, 2015, prepared by Krupakaran Kolandaivelu, P.E. Mr. Mackie appointed Associate Member Matthew Cummings as a voting member for this hearing. Mr. Martin Cohen, Network Building & Consulting LLC, explained this is an existing wireless facility that utilizes a stealth -type structure (chimney) located on the rooftop of 127 North Main Street. Presently, there are three (3) antennas concealed within fiberglass false brick chimneys. Mr. Cohen said the existing 2'x2' chimneys will be replaced in the same locations with three 2'x6' chimneys to allow the addition of six (6) antennas. Mr. Cohen said the height of the chimneys and the size of the equipment cabinets located on the building's third floor will not change. He said this is an L700 project as part of a nationwide initiative to provide more capacity and better service Mr. Cohen said T- Mobile applied for a building permit in 2008 which was denied by the Building Inspector. The decision was appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and a variance was granted in 2009. Mr. Cohen said initially, he applied for an amendment to the 2009 variance for the new antennas, but after speaking with Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development, it was decided he should apply for a variance /special permit. Mr. Mackie stated the FCC dictated that state and local municipalities cannot restrict the use of wireless facilities and additions and alterations to wireless facilities. Mr. Mackie said this application should be for a variance. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the application of T- Mobile Northeast, LLC Trust for a Variance under Section 3.10.4A of the Zoning By -Law to change, extend or alter a pre- existing, non- conforming structure or use by modifying a pre- existing, non - conforming wireless communications facility mounted on the rooftop at 127 North Main Street in the Business 1 (Bl) Zone in accordance with the plan, "T- Mobile Northeast LLC ", Site Number: 4PR0438C, Site Name: PR438 /Wheeler Building, T- Mobile 70OMHZ Installation, Design 702C7, 127 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 Bristol County", dated January 26, 2015, revised February 13, 2015, February 23, 2015 and March 30, 2015, prepared by Krupakaran Kolandaivelu, P.E. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garber - Miller said the property is not in a residential neighborhood, the antennas will be concealed in a chimney and the equipment cabinets are located inside the building so there will be no visual detriment to the surrounding area. The modification will provide better service. Motion passed 5 -0 -0. Hearing ended at 8:00 pm. 4. Christopher McNamara, Little Mac Realty LLC, 119 Chauncy Street, Map 21, Parcel 322. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Christopher McNamara, Little Mac Realty LLC, for a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Side Yard Setback and Lot Area, for the construction of a duplex 3 with a 10 -foot side yard setback where 15 is required on a 12,455 square foot lot where 15,000 square feet is required at 119 Chauncy Street (Map 21, Parcel 322) in the Residential 3 (133) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's office February 24, 2015; a copy of the public hearing notice; Request for continuance dated April 7, 2015; E -mail dated May 6, 2015 from Attorney Edward Valanzola to withdrawn the application for a variance for side yard setback; "Proposed House Location Plan at HSE. No. 119 Chauncy Street ", dated November 10, 2014, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Mackie appointed Associate Member Aaron Gallagher as voting member for this hearing. This hearing was opened and continued in April 2015. Attorney Edward Valanzola and Applicant Christopher McNamara were present. Attorney Valanzola explained Mr. McNamara is proposing to demolish the existing single - family house, which was built in 1900, and construct a 30'x58' two -story duplex, which is an allowed use in an R3 Zone. Attorney Valanzola said there have been significant changes to the area; the widening of Route 106 resulted in a land taking and the road becomes one lane at the Highland Avenue intersection, one of the busiest intersections in town due to business and train station traffic. Attorney Valanzola said this area has changed over the years and will continue to change Attorney Valanzola said the applicant is proposing to build the two -story duplex on a 12,455 square -foot lot where 15,000 square feet are required. The side yard setback will be 10.9 feet where 15 feet is required. The existing four bedroom house is 1,885 square feet with four bedrooms and the proposed duplex will be 1,740 feet with two bedrooms per unit. He said the proposed duplex could be turned so the gable end of the building would face the front of the lot, eliminating the need for a side yard variance. Attorney Valanzola said the original plan calls for two separate driveways but suggested a shared driveway with a turnaround for each unit. He noted the neighborhood consists of single- and two - family homes and a duplex would be more appropriated for this lot than a single - family home. Mr. Mackie asked about the existing front yard setback. Attorney Valanzola said the existing stairs are 20 feet from the property line; the proposed duplex will have a 34 -foot front yard setback. Ms. Garber - Miller said she does not have a problem with the duplex, but she is concern about the location because the abutting property's garage is on the property line. She said by changing the orientation of the proposed duplex, the applicant could avoid the need for a side yard setback variance and maintain more space between the properties. Attorney Valanzola suggested adding a landscape buffer between the properties. Ms. Garber - Miller said while she understands the reconfiguration of the structure may not be as aesthetically pleasing, by using the footage in the back of the property, the applicant has the ability to make the duplex more conforming. Mr. Luca asked if a single - family home could be built without the need for zoning relief. Attorney Valanzola said a single - family home would be hard to market in this neighborhood because of the busy intersection and the additional traffic. 2 Mr. Gallagher said he does not disagree the duplex is a better fit for the neighborhood, but he does not believe there is a hardship because the house could be turned. He asked if the duplex could be reconfigured, making the house deeper and narrower to avoid needing a side yard setback. Ms. Garber - Miller said there is 73 +/- feet at the back of the property and agreed that by making the duplex longer, the orientation would not have to be changed and relief from the side yard setback requirement would not be necessary. Mr.Luca said if the variance is granted, a conforming structure would be made a non - conforming with no hardship; he said he was concerned other property owners would want to do the same thing He said the applicant has to work within the current zoning regulations. Attorney Valanzola asked if the Board would grant a lot area variance without the side yard setback variance. Mr. Mackie said if the Board was to approve the variance for lot area only, a plan showing the building envelope would have to be submitted showing compliance with all the setbacks, and the applicant would have to return for approval of any dimensional changes. Mr. Mackie said the options are to do nothing with the lot, rehabilitate the existing building, build a single - family home or reconfigure the footprint of the proposed duplex. Mr. McNamara asked if the size of the duplex could be increased if it was positioned sideways on the property. Mr. Mackie said it could, as long as all the dimensional setbacks were met. Mr. McNamara said one abutter had asked that the building not be oriented with the gable end facing the roadway. Ms. Garber - Miller made the motion to grant the a Variance from Section 4.2.1, Lot Area, for the construction of a duplex on a 12,455 square foot lot where 15,000 square feet is required at 119 Chauncy Street (Map 21, Parcel 322) in the Residential 3 (113) zone, subject to the submission of an updated plan showing the building envelope meeting the other zoning requirements. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Luca said while he does not disagree a duplex would be more marketable and probably a better fit for the neighborhood, he was concerned about making a conforming structure into a non - conforming structure. He said there is no hardship and the applicant has other options. Ms. Garber - Miller said this area was part of the study for the Transit Oriented Development overlay district, and this type of denser, multi - family housing is one of the uses specifically contemplated under that plan. She noted there are a number of duplexes in the area, so this plan would be consistent with the neighborhood. She said a single - family house in this area would not be marketable, creating a hardship. Mr. Luca noted that there will be changes to this area, but nothing has been finalized. Mr. Cummings agreed that typically this is not a substantial hardship, but said in the direct neighborhood, four out of five houses are multi - family homes. G� Mr. Mackie said the character of the whole area is going to change and the proposed duplex will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. He agreed it would be hard to market a single - family, four bedroom house in this area. Motion passed 4 -1 -0. Attorney Valanzola said he will send a letter formally withdrawing the request for a side yard setback variance (received May 6, 2015) and will submit a revised plan showing the building envelope and dimensional setbacks (revised plan dated May 6, 2015 received May 20, 2015). Hearing ended at 8:50 pm. 5. Correspondence: 6. New Business: 7. Old Business: Mr. Luca made the motion to approve the April 7, 2015 minutes. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -0 -0 8. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 9:00 pm (Luca /Cummings) Motion passed 5 -0. Next meeting will be June 2, 2015 at 7:30 pm. �o Q0, Elisabeth Garber - Miller. Clerk Date R - y- ily- 11