HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 02/28/2017Zoning Board of Appeals RECrIVED
Minutes1, it, OFFICE
February 28, 2017
Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Acting ClerkZ;Okiffi� ShanPnb: 31
Aaron Gallagher, Matthew Cummings, Eric Correira
Ms. Pruitt was appointed Acting Clerk.
Mr. Gallagher was appointed a voting member on this matter.
The chair read the public hearing notice. The application is for a Variance from Zoning
By -Law Sections 230-4.2A, Density and Dimensional Regulations: Lot Frontage, Lot
Area and Lot Width, for the creation of a lot with less than the required frontage, area and
lot width at [Map 21, Parcels 55 and 53] Alden Street (Assessor's Map 21, Parcels 55 and
53) in the Residential 2 (R2) zone.
The following documents were introduced at the public hearing:
• Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on February 10,
2017 and February 17, 2017;
• Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on January 20, 2017;
• "Proposed House Location at Alden Street in Mansfield, MA" plan dated December
14, 2016 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc.;
• February 24, 2017 letter from Kerry Smith, 18 Henry Street;
• February 28, 2017 letter from Margaret and Peter Kuplast, 61 Campbell Street;
• February 28, 2017 letter from Phyllis Kuplast, 29 Alden Street;
• February 28, 2017 letter from James O'Driscoll, 67 Fowler Street.
Attorney Karen Wright was present representing the applicant.
The plan shows the division of the property at 29 Henry Street into two lots; the existing
29 Henry Street and a new Lot 1, with frontage on Alden Street. [29 Henry Street is
Assessor's Map 21, Parcel 68; the new Lot 1 would be made up of Assessor's Map 21,
Parcels 53 and 55, both 5,000 square foot lots.] The plan shows the new Lot 1 with
10,000 square feet of area, 100 feet of frontage, 100 feet of lot width and a proposed
house that meets the setback requirements. The plan does not show the area, frontage or
setbacks of the existing 29 Henry Street lot or house.
Ms. Garber -Miller said the plan does not include any details of the existing 29 Henry
Street lot. She said the Zoning Board denied an application in 2014, and this appears to
be the same plan. Attorney Wright said Zoning By -Law Section 4.1.G says any lot with
an existing habitable structure recorded before 1989 is subject to the frontage, setback
and lot area requirements in existence prior to the Zoning By -Law's adoption in 1953.
Ms. Garber -Miller said without the details of the Henry Street lot, the board would not be
able to vote on the plan as submitted.
2/28/2017
Attorney Wright showed the board the "Westlawn" plan, which shows the lots in that
neighborhood, including the three lots the Maxwells own. She said when the Zoning By -
Law was adopted, the existing Henry Street lot contained a habitable structure and was
not held in common ownership with the other two lots. She said the other two lots were
subsequently purchased by the Maxwells.
Ms. Garber -Miller said the Maxwells bought the unbuilt lots in 2001, so they became one
lot with 29 Henry Street. She said the owners first proposed dividing the parcel in 2013,
which would have created two separate non -conforming parcels.
Attorney Wright said the "Westlawn" plan created these lots; Ms. Garber -Miller said they
are no longer separate lots because they were merged when the Maxwells bought them in
2001. Attorney Wright said if that is true, if a lot were to be purchased next to an
undersized lot with an existing house, the existing house would have to be torn down.
Ms. Garber -Miller said this plan is identical to the proposal that was denied by the ZBA
in 2013 and she does not see any material change in the lot.
Mr. Gallagher asked if the three lots are legally one lot under Massachusetts law.
Attorney Wright said they would be, except that Chapter 40A allows towns to adopt by-
laws that are less stringent, which she said Mansfield has done with Section 4.1.G. Mr.
Gallagher asked how that would preclude the other two lots becoming part of the first lot
when they were purchased by these owners. Attorney Wright said it protects the original
lot. Ms. Garber -Miller said that section simply requires existing houses to meet the
setback requirements in place prior to the adoption of the Zoning By -Law. She said if a
house was built before 1953 and the owners want to modify it, it would require a Finding
rather than a Variance because it is a pre-existing, non -conforming use. She said this
proposal is to turn one lot with a house into two lots. Mr. Gallagher said he thinks the
land is a single lot; Ms. Garber -Miller agreed. She said that would require a Variance,
but there have been no changes to the soils or topography of the land that would change
the board's 2014 decision.
Mr. Gallagher said if a Variance application for the new lot came in on its own, he thinks
the board would consider the application. However, he said this is currently one lot the
applicant wants to separate into two non -conforming lots. He said he understands the
applicant's position, noted the board has granted similar variances and said the proposed
new lot would be in keeping with other lots in the neighborhood.
Ms. Garber -Miller said if this were a request for a Finding on a pre-existing, non-
conforming property, she might feel differently. However, she said this plan shows one
lot with an existing house and the Variance request is to create two non -conforming lots.
She said this is identical to the previously denied plan.
Attorney Wright asked if there is any way to make the application a Finding. Mr.
Gallagher said he thinks the properties are one lot now, though the second lot may have
been a grandfathered lot before 2001 when the Maxwells bought the lot. Mr. Gallagher
2/28/2017
said the applicant could come back with a new plan, but the request would still be for a
Variance to turn one conforming lots into two non -conforming lots.
Mr. Shannon asked if there is a way the property line can be reconfigured to keep the
existing lot conforming, and request a variance only for the second lot. Ms. Garber -
Miller said that would be up to the applicant. Mr. Cummings said making the existing lot
conform would only leave around 1,600 square feet for the second lot.
Mr. Correira said this is a textbook merger situation; Mr. Shannon said a lot of people are
not aware of that issue. Mr. Gallagher said he is sympathetic, but he thinks this is a legal
issue and he does not see how Section 4.1.G would help address this.
Public Comment
The clerk read a February 24, 2017 letter from Kerry Smith, 18 Henry Street;
February 28, 2017 letter from Margaret and Peter Kuplast, 61 Campbell Street;
February 28, 2017 letter from Phyllis Kuplast, 29 Alden Street;
February 28, 2017 letter from James O'Driscoll, 67 Fowler Street.
Attorney Wright suggested continuing the public hearing and returning with a different
plan.
Motion: To continue the public hearing to March 28, 2017
(Shannon -Gallagher) All in favor. PASSES
3. Special Permit Public,ileariug continued=Parking-;75-Chauricy Street—
Mansfield Station, LLC
The clerk read a request from the applicant's attorney to continue the public hearing to
March 28, 2017.
Motion: To continue the public hearing to March 28, 2017
(Gallagher -Cummings) All in favor. PASSES
Mr. Correira asked how many times the public hearing would be continued. Ms. Garber -
Miller suggested having the applicant come in the next time, even if the hearing is
continued, to explain the delay.
The January 31, 2017 minutes will be taken up at the March 28, 2017 meeting.
Motion: To adjourn at 8:15 p.m. (Gallagher -Cummings) All in favor. PASSES
Date of next meeting: March 28, 2017 at 7:30 p.m.
X13, 5V
D -len r , Acting Clerk Date
2/28/2017