Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 032007 MINUTES , f~ECEIVED _1 '1 r'";-,>,!<{", r lCr' 07 APR -4 AM 9: 02 riANSr'iELO MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS r-- I MARCH 20. 2007 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall, Mansfield, MA at 7:30 P.M. Present at the hearing were the following members: Jack Vultaggio, Chairman; Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk; Eric Butler; Peter DeTrolio; Dave Rapoza, Associate Member; and Jeff Garr, Associate Member. Motion to accept the Minutes of March 6, 2007 was made by Ms. Garber-Miller and seconded by Mr. Rapoza; unanimously approved. Mr. Butler abstained because he was not present. Motion to accept the Minutes of February 20, 2007 was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller; unanimously approved. Mr. Rapoza abstained because he was not present. In the application of John and Ellen Lynch for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law, for the construction of a proposed 2-car garage w/family room above with less than the required side yard setback at 34 Riverside Drive in the R-2 Zone, the hearing began at 7:40 P.M. (' The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan Lot 13A 34 Riverside Drive dated December 27, 2006 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA and labeled as Exhibit "C". Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter from the Planning Board into the record: "With six (6) members present, the voted unanimously to send a negative recommendation on this application because it does not conform to the statutory requirements for the grant of a variance. In addition, it was suggested the addition could be smaller to avoid encroaching into the side yard setback." Michael Trowbridge of Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates introduced himself as representing Mr. and Mrs. Lynch. They have owned the property for 15 years. Mr. Trowbridge indicated that it is a small house and the applicants have three children. He explained that the applicants are requesting a variance for an addition that will include a garage, master bedroom and additional bathroom. The addition will alleviate the need for additional space for their family of 5 with 3 school age children. The hardship is the narrow width of the lot and the fact that there are wetlands in the back area of the lot. Construction on the side would keep disturbance away from the wetlands. The applicant also feels that the addition is consistent with other additions that have been completed in the neighborhood over the last several years. r-- MINUTES OF MARCH 20. 2007 PAGE 2 of6 _ Mrs. Garber-Miller read a letter from Ken and Jen Call, 38 Riverside Drive into the record. "We have been the Lynch's neighbor for five years. During this time, we have become friends and enjoy having them as our neighbors. The variance that they are seeking is on the side of the property that abuts our existing home. The granting of this variance will have no effect on our property as we have existing buffering presently. We hope that the Board will grant the Lynch's request allowing them to expand their home and stay in our neighborhood." Ms. Garber-Miller stated that she went around the neighborhood and one home with a similar addition looks crowded and is unattractive. However, she noted that aesthetics vary from person to person. The hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. In the application of Lester, Mary and James Epstein for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 and Section 1.5.17a of the Zoning By-Law, for the construction of a single family home on a lot with less than the required lot frontage, and lot width at 89 Walnut Street and Chauncy Street rear, in the R-2 Zone, the hearing began at 7:50 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan dated September 23,2005 and revised on January 24, 2007 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA was r-- labeled as Exhibit "C". Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members present, the Board voted four (4) in favor with two (2) opposed to send a negative recommendation on this application because it does not meet the statutory requirements for the grant of a variance." Mr. Ed Valanzola introduced himself as attorney for the applicant, Lester Epstein, who was also present. Mr. Valanzola passed out a small plan for the Board to review. He read from his Exhibit "A" and explained to the Board the following: Mr. Epstein purchased the property (Lots A, B & C), including the land now known as Route 140, which abuts parcels A and B, sometime in the 1960s. He lived in the house that was located on Lot B with his family before the taking for Route 140. He had plans for a subdivision prepared by RIM Engineering. Before he could proceed with the subdivision, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, property was taken by the State via eminent domain, resulting in the construction of Route 140 across Mr. Epstein's property. In connection with the taking, Mr. Epstein bought back the house that was located on Lot B at the comer of the new Route 140 and Chauncy Street (Route 106). ,- MINUTES OF MARCH 20. 2007 PAGE 3 of6 ~ He moved the house to a lot across from Stop and Shop and constructed a new house on Lot C, which is where he has resided with his family since the early 1980s. His daughter, her husband and their two children live in the house across from Stop and Shop. The traffic, lights and noise are a constant nuisance to them. If the requested relief is granted, they will construct a single-family house on Lot A. Mr. Valanzola indicated that in connection with the taking, the Town of Mansfield had the right to acquire land along Route 140 from the State, and had explored various uses which would have required the right of way for access since, it could not be accessed from Route 140. When the Town did not exercise the right to acquire this land, Mr. Epstein re-acquired the property. Mr. Valanzola went on to discuss development of other parcels to the south, north and across Route 140, including retail establishments and restaurants. In the immediate vicinity, retail business and development have changed the area, which has been rezoned to accommodate the development. Mr. Valanzola argued that the State's taking of Mr. Epstein's property and construction of Route 140 have created a hardship since he is unable to use the frontage on Lot A that abuts Route 140 as the frontage to the property. Mr. Epstein proposes to construct a single-family home on Lot C for his daughter. Immediately to the west of Lot A (between Lot A and Walnut Street) is a house formerly occupied by Mr. Epstein's daughter-in-law. Immediately south of Lot A along Chauncy Street are five other house lots. The proposed single family home on Lot A would allow ~ for an extension of the residential area for each of these properties. If the variance is granted, a house would be constructed on the new Lot A. Access will be through a 20' right of way over Lot C. Except for relief requested herein, the Lot shall comply in all respect with the Zoning By-Laws. Further, 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. In fact, construction of a single-family house on this Lot will benefit the other abutting residential lots and homes, which are surrounded by the retail development in the area. Furthermore, the spirit and intent of the by-law has been met since there is actually 151 feet of frontage along Route 140. Also, the variance can be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Ed Valanzola introduced himself as attorney for the applicant, Lester Epstein, who was also present. Mr. Valanzola passed out a small plan for the Board to review. He read from his Exhibit "A" and explained to the Board the following: Mr. Epstein purchased the property (Lots A, B & C), including the land now known as Route 140, which abuts parcels A and B, sometime in the 1960's. He lived in the house that was located on Lot B with his family before the taking for Route 140. He had plans for a subdivision prepared by RIM Engineering. Before he could proceed with the subdivision, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, a taking resulted in the construction of Route 140 across Mr. Epstein's property. In connection with the taking, Mr. Epstein bought back the house that was located on Lot B at the comer of the new Route 140 and Chauncy Street (Route 106). r-- MINUTES OF MARCH 20. 2007 PAGE 4 of6 ~ An abutter, James Coffin of 14 Casa Drive, stated that there are only 2 lots back there and they want to create 3 lots. He questioned that there is no mention of the wetlands, and the Board notes that the Conservation Commission would have to look at this. Mr. Coffin further stated that he directly abuts this property and the proposed house will be right in his backyard, and he questions how the applicant will access this property and whether he can put a road in anywhere because he owns the property. Another abutter stated that the concerns that the abutters have are not with this application, but with whatever comes along with this. The abutter noted that in the past, what Mr. Epstein says and what Mr. Epstein does are two different things. As long as this does not encroach on the property, they do not have a problem. The abutter stated that they are not objecting to one house, it is just what follows that concerns them. Mr. Valanzola stated that the Board could put a condition in for a location of the house, so it doesn't interfere with the abutters. Ms. Garber-Miller noted that the land was taken from the Epsteins originally by eminent domain, but they were paid fair market value for the land at that time. He then bought the land back in 2003 for speculative purposes; knowing the current zoning limitations. Ms. Garber-Miller took issue with the fact that that Lot A would not actually have any frontage, but would only have a 20 foot right of way in a zone where 150 feet of frontage r is required. Mr. Vultaggio agreed that the lot would legally have no frontage. The Board discussed a number of future scenarios with the large parcel of land (of which proposed Lot A was only a small portion), but determined that the issue must focus on the proposed Lot A only, and the significant degree of deficiency that this proposed lot would present given the parameters of the by-law. Mr. Butler noted that there had been attempts in the past to obtain variances on another portion of the large parcel. The hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Vultaggio recused himself from the next hearing. Ms. Garber-Miller was appointed Acting Chairman in place of Mr. Vultaggio, and Mr. Butler was appointed Acting Clerk in place of Ms. Garber-Miller for this hearing. Mr. Rapoza and Mr. Garr were appointed voting members for this hearing. The application of Jason and Kimberly Davies for a Finding from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law, for the construction of a proposed addition with less than the required side yard setback at 531 Bird Road in the R-l Zone began at 8:40 P.M. r-- MINUTES OF MARCH 20. 2007 PAGE50f6 ~ The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Plan of Proposed Addition for 531 Bird Road in Mansfield, MA dated January 17, 2007 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C". Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter from the Planning Board into the record: "With six (6) members present, voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation on this application." Mr. and Mrs. Davies explained that the house is already non-conforming and needs to be upgraded. The house currently has only one bedroom and they would like to add two more. The proposed addition will enhance the neighborhood by eliminating a home in need of improvement. There were no abutter objections to the proposed addition. The hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. DAVIES - A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio, that the proposed addition constitutes an extension of the existing non-conformity: unanimously approved. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio, that the increase in the non-conformity is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non- conformity: unanimously approved. (' (Garber-Miller, Butler, DeTrolio, Rapoza, Garr). 5-0 LYNCH, A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Rapoza to grant a variance to Mr. Lynch based upon a hardship relating to the slope and narrow width of the property. Approved 5-0. (Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Butler, DeTrolio, Rapoza). EPSTEIN - A motion was made by Mr. DeTrolio and seconded by Mr. Rapoza to grant a variance to Mr. Epstein. (Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Butler, DeTrolio, Rapoza). Failed 3-2 (In Favor: Rapoza; Vultaggio) (Against: Garber-Miller; Butler: DeTrolio) - VARIANCE DENIED Reason: Ms. Garber-Miller stated that she saw no hardship, because the State paid fair market value when bought the land from Mr. Epstein at the time of the original taking and he bought it back in 2003 knowing the zoning restrictions; there is no legally deeded frontage; and she feels that she has to be consistent with her vote. Ms. Garber-Miller felt that this would derogate significantly from the intent of the By-Law regarding required frontage and lot width, and particularly, that this lot would have no legal frontage. Further, she stated that he bought the land back, it was purchased for speculation. r-- MINUTES OF MARCH 20. 2007 PAGE 6 of6 r-- Mr. Vultaggio stated that Mr. Epstein could go commercial, or he could put in a subdivision or residential compound and build approximately 3 or 4 houses. This was, in Mr. Vultaggio's opinion, the best solution. Further, granting a variance in certain situations that meet all other zoning requirements, other than frontage, should occur when it is in the best interests of the abutters. Mr. Rapoza stated that by saying "no" now, it mean you are only looking for what will happen with the land today, and you are not looking for tomorrow. The applicant bought the land to do something with it, whether it is speculative or not. Mr. Vultaggio further stated that this is better for the neighborhood by constructing one house instead of a business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ ,r-- r--