Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 061907 ." MINUTES RECEIVED r'l """.'!' . ... ',' .'''' " f..... .'"'-1 (." r' ': .. : ,.". .) ",!r r- .,' 07JUL 18 AHII:06 f'lhN IELD MASSACHUSETTS " Ii i \J ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19. 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; Jeff Garr, Associate Member. Mr. Rapoza was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. DeTrolio. The application of Maple Leaf Realty Trust, Deborah Thibault, Trustee, for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the creation of a lot, to build a single family house, with less than the required lot frontage, depth and width, at 559 Maple Street in the R-l Zone. The hearing began at 7:30 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Board Plan Maple Street dated March 22, 2007 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board. Attorney Edward V alanzola introduced himself, and explained Deborah Thibault and her husband Paul have lived at 559 Maple Street, which they have owned since 1983. Their existing house is shown on the plan, along with proposed lots 125, 126 & 127. The total land area of the three lots (excluding the existing house lot) is approximately 12 acres. Paul Thibault's grandfather owned all of this land and an additional 10 acres or so since the early 1920's. Paul acquired the land from his father, who had acquired it from his grandfather. They have always planned on allowing their two children to build homes on this land. The son and daughter, both Mansfield residents, will be building homes on lots 126 and 127. Both of those lots comply with all zoning requirements and relief is not required. Paul and Deborah Thibault are in their 60's and would like to downsize and build a smaller home on lot 125. Paul is a retired police officer and Deborah works as a nurse. They would sell their current home and use the proceeds for their retirement. The applicant has explored the possibility of a Residential Compound and subdivision. Both would require substantial and unnecessary costs and result in less desirable lots due to the wetlands. Three lots could easily be created since the by-law requires only a single tract of land with frontage of 50 feet and a total lot area of no less than 80,000 square feet per proposed lot. If the requested relief is granted for lot 125, then lots 126 and 127 (which require no relief) will likely share a common driveway through the wetlands and the homes for each lot will be built on the high land toward the rear of the lots. ;,., MINUTES OF JUNE 19.2007 Pae:e 2 of 5 With respect to lot 125 (which requires a variance), a 20' driveway easement will be created along the same area of the driveway that leads to the current home. You cannot see the existing home or the new lot from Maple Street. There will be no visible difference when viewing the existing home and new home on lot 125 from Maple St. The two homes on lots 126 and 127 will comply with all zoning requirements and confirm to other lots in the area, with substantially more land. The soil conditions, particularly the significant wetland areas on all three lots create a hardship for this property. 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, the spirit and intent of the by-law has been met since this is the best layout for development of this land as three house lots. Only one requires zoning relief. An abutter, John Shiurila of 10 Clementine Drive and Theresa Nevers of 14 Clementine Drive were concerned with what exactly will be built there. Mr. Valanzola further explained that they could build 3 houses either way. This way is less costly than a residential compound. The hearing closed at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Rapoza was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. DeTrolio. The application of Charles Hughes for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By- Law on Lot 1 for the allowance of a house lot with less than the required lot frontage, depth and width, and a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law on Lot 2 for the allowance of a second lot with an existing house with less than the required lot frontage, width, depth and lot area at 111 Plain Street in the R-2 Zone began at 7:50 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; a Zoning Board Plan 111 Plain Street dated February 5, 2007 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA was labeled as Exhibit "c" and a Building Permit issued June 27, 2006 for 111 Plain Street, Mansfield, MA, with Remarks: "Section 3.3.1 Mansfield Zoning By-Law Existing Dwelling structure to be completely demolished under a separate demolition permit, prior to occupancy being granted to this dwelling." Ms. Garber-Miller read a letter from the Planning Board into the record. "With seven (7) voted the Board 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. MINUTES OF JUNE 19.2007 PAGE 30(5 Mr. and Mrs. Hughes explained that the existing single family home at 111 Plain Street was constructed in 1960 and has 120 feet of frontage. The house sits on 3.44 acres of land, which until 2006 was divided into 3 separate lots. The lot with the house and a separate lot (Lots 21A and 125A) consisted of 76,461 square feet and a third lot acquired from adjoining family owned property at 101 Plan Street (Lot A consists of 73,448 sq. feet and a 25 foot right of way along the adjoining property line). The applicants, Karen Chambers-Hughes and Charles G. Hughes, II, own all three lots. The original house sits off Plain Street at the top of a crest in the road. There is a steep drop in the topography over 12 feet from the front of the house along the street to the back of the house. If removed, the steep grade could produce a hazard to the traffic flow on Plain Street, especially during the winter months with snow and ice on the grade. The applicants purchased 111 Plain Street in March 2000. Since the Hughes' were in the military, they rented out the house. After retiring from the military in 2006, they started construction on a new home located on the rear of the property on the two lots separate from the existing house lot. Access to this new home is thru the 25 ft. right-of-way that uses the existing topography with no changes to Plain Street. A substantial hardship for the applicant would be created if the house were removed. The Hughes' are both retired from the U.S. military and are on a fixed income. The house represents monthly income for the family that was planned into their retirement plans. The house also represents cost effective housing for Mrs. Hughes' 75-year old mother if needed and housing for their single daughter once the current renter vacates the house. If made to tear this house down it would displace an older single female renter with a dog and two cats. If the home would be demolished, it would be difficult for her to fmd another place that accepts pets. She has been renting this house since 2000 and prior to renting, she spent 6 months in a hotel trying to find a place in Mansfield that accepts pets. Under the present zoning regulations, in order to occupy the new home once completed, the existing single family home must be demolished. The applicant is requesting a frontage variance to allow the current existing home with a frontage of 110 feet and the new home with 10 feet of street frontage. The two properties have separate access driveways and tree lined property borders affording privacy to both properties. Approving the variance would allow the current renter to remain in the home and keeps an affordable house in the town inventory of affordable housing. The current house is in excellent condition with a new septic system installed in 2000 in accordance with Title Five and a new gas water heater installed in 2005. The house was built in 1960 and has been a part of the Plain Street neighborhood for over 47 years. Granting the variance would not be a detriment to the public or derogate from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. The hearing closed at 8: lOP .M. MINUTES OF JUNE 19.2007 PAGE 4 0'5 Mr. Garr was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Butler. The application of Basil Bantimba for a Finding from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By- Law for the construction of a second floor on the existing dwelling to a pre-existing, non- conforming structure with less than the required side yard setback at 419 South Main Street in the R-2 Zone began at 8:10 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Mortgage Inspection Plan dated April 1, 1977 and prepared by American Surveying Company, 135 Beaver Street, Waltham, MA 02154 was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board. Mr. Bantimba explained that he would like to add a bedroom on top of an existing addition. The house faces South Main Street and there is a lean-to on the rear of the house. Over the years some of the trees have come down and now they would like to put a second floor on and fix up the house. Also, there will be no increase in the footprint of the house. The Board requested from the Applicant two sets of plans that show the dimensions of the proposed addition. The hearing closed at 8:15 P.M. BANTIMBA: A motion was made by Ms. Garber-Miller to find that proposed addition is an increase in the non-conformity of the existing structure, seconded by Mr. Rapoza. Unanimously approved. A motion was made by Ms. Garber-Miller that the increase is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure, seconded by Mr. Rapoza. Unanimously approved. Unanimously granted. Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Mackie, Rapoza, Garr. (5-0) HUGHES: A motion to grant was made by Mr. Mackie and seconded by Mr. Butler to grant a Variance to Mr. Hughes. All in favor (Vultaggio, Mackie) - All opposed (Butler, Rapoza, Garber-Miller. (Motion Denied 3-2). ~ . ,; . ~ MINUTES OF JUNE 19. 2007 PAGE 5 0'5 MAPLE LEAF REALTY TRUST - A Motion was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. Mackie to approve the application as stated. Discussion: Ms. Garber-Miller stated that people don't live forever. Families may part company and then you have two people unrelated, possibly hating each other, and then forced to share a driveway. This is a problem you won't have with a residential compound driveway. Mr. Vultaggio stated that they applicants will be able to do this anyway, so from a practical standpoint it makes more sense to put in a residential compound. If you have 12 acres of land you should be able to put 4 houses on that lot. A motion was made by Mr. Valanzola to withdraw his application. A motion to accept the motion to withdraw was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. Mackie. Motion to withdraw unanimously approved. Vultaggio, Garber-Miller, Butler, Mackie, Rapoza. A motion was made by Mr. Mackie and seconded by Mr. Rapoza to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, El~~~ Clerk