Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 040307 ., '" RECEIVED ",",,' ('l '"^"I(~ n ',' ,r"",' ,( i ,< '. ,;:OF 'r'"'f ,.. , ".' ~; J,J 07 JUL /8 AM If: 06 IJSFIELD MASSACHUSETTS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 3. 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; Kevin Mackie; Dave Rapoza, Associate Member; and Jeff Garr, Associate Member. Mr. Rapoza was appointed voting member for these hearings in place of Mr. DeTrolio. The application of Ronald N. Sherman for a Finding from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law, for the construction of a proposed deck with less than the required side yard setback at 25 Summer Street in the R-3 Zone began at 7:40 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Plan of Proposed Deck at #25 Summer Street in Mansfield, MA dated February 26, 2007 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board into the record. Ron Sherman introduced himself as representing Dan Brown and his mother, Mary, who owns the property. Mr. Sherman explained they are proposing to construct a 12'xI2' deck to the rear of the existing house. The hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller that this proposed addition constitutes an extension of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. Unanimously approved. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Ms. Garber- Miller that the proposed addition is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. Unanimously approved. Unanimously granted. (5-0) Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Butler, Mackie, Rapoza The application of 875 South Main Street Realty Trust for a Special Permit from Sections 3.10.4A and 3.5.20 of the Zoning By-Law, for an extension of a pre-existing, non- conforming use in order to increase the number of parking spaces at 875 South Main Street in the 1-1 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 2007 Page 2 of5 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 labeled as Exhibit "C". Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With six (6) members present, the Planning Board did not feel the application included sufficient information to make a recommendation. The Board is concerned about a number of items that were not addressed in the application, such as the impact of the additional traffic on the Route 140 traffic management plan, and/or the need for additional detail officers. It is also unclear what the applicant proposes to do about stormwater management, as well as paving and landscaping, which the ZBA may want to have clarified before making a decision on this application. Dan Clemmey introduced himself and explained drainage and landscaping. They currently have 481 spaces and the wish to expand toO spaces to have a total of 581 parking spaces. He also stated that he feels nothing will change except the route traffic. He further explained that every year Tweeter Center is slowing down and there are not many shows at Tweeter that were sellouts. There are maybe 2 or 3 shows a season. There will be no additional traffic and they control all the parking. Most of the people that park there are local people that like quick exit parking. There is no top to the pavement, it is ground up pavement; the same materials used at Miller Recycling. The Building Inspector informed the applicant that because it is pre-existing they need a special permit for the 100 spaces. Mr. Butler was concerned with the black top or lack of it, but the only issue being addressed here is the parking spaces not the materials use, and the building inspector will address that subject. Also, Mr. Butler read the opinion of the Police Department into the record. "Police Department does not approve and stronglv discourages. Existing public safety issues caused by this lot would become far more serious. Arthur O'Neill, Chief of Police" . Mr. Clemmey stated that they are not in the parking business; this is just additional revenue for them. Further, there used to be 57 shows a year, then last year there were 27 shows and this year there are 20 shows scheduled. The hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. MINUTES OF APRIL 3. 2007 PAGE3of5 A motion was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller to approve the special permit parking for an additional 100 spaces from 481 spaces to 581 spaces, and that this does not supercede the numbers allowed for a commercial lot. Ms. Garber- Miller seconded the motion. Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Mackie, Rapoza, Butler (Unanimously approved 5-0). Mr. Vultaggio stated that he feels this is no big deal and no issue; Mr. Garr wanted to know if the Selectman or other committees have any comments; and Mr. Butler had concerns about the paving, but felt that if the Board insisted that it is the Building Inspector's concern to enforce this compliance of the paving. Old Business was discussed. The application of Lester Epstein was discussed. Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter dated March 21,2007 from Edward Valanzola into the record. "To: Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals. As you know, I appeared with Mr. Epstein last night before your Board regarding his request for a variance to build a house on a lot that contains approximately 1 % acres and is part of two larger parcels totaling 6 acres, more or less. Please let this letter serve as my client's request to ask the Board to reconsider its decision for the following reasons: 1. Some of the reasons set forth by Board members opposing the variance were contrary to the Board's own policy and the facts that were presented. 2. The Board has always made it clear that they are not interested in the past decisions they have made. As the Board has said a number of times, all land is unique and must stand on its own when being evaluated for a variance. Nevertheless, during the deliberations, my client's property was compared to property on Branch Street. First of all, the two properties are not similar in size or many other respects. Secondly, had the applicant been given the opportunity to discuss other properties, we would have shared the July 22, 1988 decision by the Board (signed by a current member and yours truly) to grant a variance to Gary and Janet Eagan to construct a single family house at 20 Janet Lane "with no (0) frontage, subject however to......a 20' buffer zone must remain on said property. . . . . . and a privacy hedge on said property abutting residents of 9 Patricia Road and 14 Janet Lane." The applicant last night offered to plant a 200' privacy hedge along the south boundary of the property and the abutters seems satisfied with that offer. MINUTES OF APRIL 3. 2007 PAGE 4 of5 3. During deliberations, it was repeatedly stated that there was no frontage at all. But the facts presented clearly show that there is actually 151.21 feet of frontage along Route 140, but since it is a state highway, it cannot be used to access the property and is considered "illusory frontage". This is consistent with the spirit and intent of the by law, which requires the 150 feet of frontage. 4. During deliberations, it was stated that Mr. Epstein bought the land as speculation. This is completely inconsistent with the facts presented and unfair to the applicant. He lived in his house on the front lot (Lot B) and owned all of the land, including the land on 140 since the 1960' s. When the town elected no to acquire from the state the land that was not used for 140, Mr. Epstein reacquired the land he had already owned. To suggest he did this as speculation is mere conjecture and is not supported by the actual evidence presented. He simply bought back what he had already owned. And if it was for speculation, so what? That is not relevant and the applicant should no be punished for this. 5. It was stated that there is no hardship. That is simply a convenient way to deny any variance that a member may personally oppose. Few variances satisfy the elements required by the statute. Yet when the equities are balanced in this case or any case and favor the granting of a variance, the hardship criteria are relaxed. In this case, the taking, which created 200' of illusory frontage and the Town's refusal to rezone the property, requiring it to be used a residential, as much of a hardship as any presented to this Board. As stated by some of the members, the applicant has a legal right to develop this property (residential compound, subdivision, etc). He is asking for permission to add one house lot at this time for his daughter on a lot that is 1-% acres. Why would the Board want him to incur the cost and expense of the other options? Those other options may eventually be pursued, but the one lot requested by this variance will act as a nice buffer to the existing residences for the time being and remove this lot form potential future development. Please understand that while the applicant is disappointed with the denial of the variance and hopes that you will reconsider your decision, he is also troubled by the fact that the basis for the denial ignored facts presented and relief on speculation, a comparison with other property and facts not presented or discussed. Would you kindly place this matter on for hearing during your April 3rd meeting. Thank you for your time and further consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Edward M. Valanzola. MINUTES OF APRIL 3. 2007 PAGE 5 of5 Motion to reconsider was made by Mr. Mackie, but there was no second. Mr. Butler feels only someone who voted should be able to make a motion to reconsider, and since Mr. Mackie was not present at that hearing, he cannot make a motion. NO MOTION TO RECONSIDER. NO DISCUSSION. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~4? ,-t2.. ~ Elisabeth Garber-Miller, Clerk , -