Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 03/06/2018Zoning Board of AppealsRECEIVED Minutes - March 6, 2018 C _ ' 1 EI;m OFFICE Present: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darlene Pruitt, Clerk; Philiphan�}Qn�QarQn 33 Gallagher, Matthew Cummings; Associate Member Eric Correira til{ JJtttt 00 HH The chair read the public hearing notice. The application is for a Finding from Zoning By -Law Sections 230-3.10, Non -Conforming Uses and 230-7.2B(4), Findings for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non conforming structure with less than the required front yard and rear yard setbacks at 10 Columbine Road (Assessor's Map 36, Parcel 32) 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 16, 2018 and February 23, 2018; • ith the Town Clerk's Office on January 26, 2018; Application for Variance, filed w • "Zoning Plan 10 Columbine Road" dated November 2, 2017 and prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Dennis Colwell, architect and Tim Travers, president, Old Colony Habitat for Humanity, were present. Mr. Colwell explained the proposed single-family residence on a pre-existing, non- conforming lot. The new house would have a 20 -foot rear yard setback, 19 -foot sideyard setback on the side with the existing garage and s 15 -foot front yard setback. The front of the house would be in line with existing houses on the street. Board Comment Mr. Gallagher asked what is behind the lot. Mr. Travers said it is wooded land, which he said he believes is owned by the town. Mr. Correria said the new house seems to be about the same size as the existing house; Mr. Colwell said it is a standard house Habitat uses. Mr. Correira asked if the square footage of the new house is more or less than the existing house; Mr. Travers said the existing house is a one-story ranch. He said they wanted to provide the new house with more side yard and make it less intrusive to the neighbors. He said it would be similar to the other homes in the neighborhood and be more visually appealing. Public Comment Barbara Thomas, 12 Columbine Road, asked if the house will be turned or left on the same footprint. Mr. Colwell said the house would be two stories, be rotated 90 degrees and have a narrower footprint; the front door will face the street. Ms. Thomas said snow removal is a serious problem in the neighborhood and asked where the driveway will go. 3/6/2018 Mr. Colwell said the driveway will be on the left side of the new house. Mr. Travers said the existing garage will be removed and that area will be lawn. A resident asked about traffic and parking during construction. Mr. Travers said he understands the neighbors' concerns and explains he plans to park the volunteers off site shuttleand w and plan build the house to dayinstall weeks to fenceilt tpeopleo keep his ave o low impactpact on t property, t the community. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Trevisone e. The application is for a The chair read the public hearing nofiS deyard Setback and 230-7.2(4), Findings for Zoning By -Law Sections 230-4.2A, change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming structure with less than the required side yard setback at 40 Casa Drive (Assessor's Map 20, Parcel 215) 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 16, 2018 and February 23, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on January 31, 2018; • "Proposed House Addition at Hse. No. 40 Casa Drive in Mansfield, MA," dated January 29, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Owner Steve Trevisone explained the existing garage has 20 -foot ceilings and he proposes to put a family room above the garage with a family room above that. He said it would still meet the height requirement, and the finished elevation will be about seven feet taller than the existing garage. Mr. Trevisone said he has spoken with his neighbors, who told him they are fine with the idea. He said there are other houses on the street of a similar height. Ms. Garber -Miller said she spoke with the Building Inspector and thinks this should be a finding because the existing garage already has a variance. She said she is concerned about the addition being three stories tall and very close to the property line. Mr. Trevisone said the existing garage matches the peak of the house; the new roof will be 32 feet high with a gradual pitch in front and sloping down at the back. Ms. Garber -Miller said she spoke with the Building Inspector about this proposal not changing the footprint, but changing the pre-existing non -conformity. Mr. Trevisone said he does not think the addition will affect the neighboring property any more than the existing garage. He said he spoke with the neighbor on the garage side, who said he did not have a problem with the proposal. 3/6/2018 Public Comment None Board Comment said St the architect dif the garage would determine)d take the aditioal how that would nwork. structural load; Mr. Trevisone on suggested looking at the foundation first. Ms. Garber -Miller closed the hearing at 7:50 p.m. 4. Variance YuW1c neax.u9 r.. __ _ _. _ The chair read the public hearing notice. The application is for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.713 (1), Signs, to allow one freestanding sign with less than the required ten foot (10') setback from the street at 200 Gilbert Street (Assessor's Map 3, Parcel 122) in the Industrial 2 (12) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on February 16, 2018 and February 23, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 2, 2018; Sheet O1 of 04 and Sheet 02 of 04 "Jordi Labs 200 Gilbert Street Mansfield, MA" •plan dated February 1, 2018 and prepared by SignDesign. Scott Freno, Sign Design, Mark Jordi and Tony DeSilva, Jordi Labs Mr. Freno explained the proposal to install a new sign six feet back from the road rather than the required 10 feet. The sign will be non -illuminated, five feet tall and perpendicular to the road. He said the intention is to center the sign in the grassy area at the parking lot entrance, and said setting it back ten feet would put it in the parking lot. Ms. Pruitt asked if there would be any lighting for the sign, including ground lighting; Mr. Freno said there would not be. Ms. Garber -Miller said she is concerned that Gilbert Street is a scenic road. She noted the sign's dimensions meet the requirements of the by-law but asked for a plan showing the location of the sign on the site. Mr. Freno said he does not have a certified plot plan showing that; Ms. Garber -Miller said the board would need that. Mr. Correira asked if there is an existing sign; Mr. Jordi said the existing sign is coming down; they want the new sign to be at their first entrance after turning onto Gilbert Street from Otis Street. Ms. Garber -Miller said the board will require a scaled plot plan showing the location of the sign, the street, the right-of-way and the property line; Mr. Freno said they can provide that. He said the applicant was hoping for a positive decision before incurring the cost of er said without the plan, the where the s g would be placed. Mr. Freno d o saidthe sign rendering is to b cannot tell ale. 3/6/2018 Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the fence shown on the plan exists' Mr. Jordi said that fence has been removed. Ms. Garber -Miller said the applicant would have to submit a plot plan. Public Comment None Ms. Garber -Miller closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m. Hughes The chair read the public hearing notice. The application is for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-1.5.17, Lot Width and 230-4.2A, Density and Dimensional Regulations, Residential Districts, Lot Frontagethessand Lot the Area, lot width, lot area e a lot [existing house #101, shown as "Lot El and lot frontage at 101 Plain Street (Assessor's Map 2, Parcel 110) in the Residential 1 (RI) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on February 16, 2018 and February 23, 2018; Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on February 6, 2018; •• "Zoning Plan 101 and 111 Plain Street" dated June 30, 2017 and prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Karen Chambers Hughes and Charles Hughes, 111 Plain Street, explained Ms. Chambers Hughes's mother lives at 101 Plain Street and said they would like to avoid possible problem with side and rear boundaries in the future. She said it appears the row of trees next to 101 Plain Street is the lot line, but it is not; the existing lot lines do not meet the topography of the land. She said this proposal is only to realign the lot lines, not to take down any trees and not for any new construction. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the proposal would make the 101 Plain Street lot smaller; Ms - Chambers -Hughes said it would. Ms. Chambers -Hughes said the properties back up to town -owned land. Mr. Gallagher asked if the existing easement is recorded with the Bristol County Registry of Deeds; Mr. Hughes said it is. Ms. Chambers -Hughes said they are trying to make the lots more regularly shaped. Ms. Garber -Miller said the house on 101 Plain Street predates zoning. Public Comment None 3/6/2018 Ms. Garber -Miller closed the hearing at 8:10 Structure a Setbopk - JU10-Fe, Lic,--is for pplication The chair read the public hearing notiir less Variance. TheaCommunication aTowersCeto allow nthe By -Law Section 230-3.6(G)(4)(g), construction of a wireless telecommunications facility with less than the required setback from the nearest residential structure at 251 Branch Street (Assessor's Map 34, Parcels 10 and 10 1) in the Industrial 2 (12) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on February 16, 2018 and February 23, 2018; the Town Clerk's Office on February 2, 2018; Application for Variance, filed with Plan titled "IRG MA0029 251 Branch Street Mansfield, MA 02048 Bristol County" dated December 19, 2017 and revised December 200, 2017, December 28, 2017, January 11, 2018 and January 29, 2018 and prepared by NB+C Engineering Services, LLC. Attorney Ricardo Sousa, Prince Lobel Tye, LLC; Ryan Monte de Ramos, TMobile RF Engineer; Keenan Brinn, TMobile and Eco -Site Site Acquisition; Mark Correnti, realtor. Attorney Sousa explained the applicant could not place the tower in a way to meet the g relief A for that setbfoot setback from a residential has da specialso are permit publicnhearing with the Planning setback. He said the app Board on March 14. Attorney Sousa noted the Planning Director sent the Planning Board a memo indicating the Planning Board has the right to hire a consultant to guide it through the technical aspects of the application. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if it is premature to come to the ZBA for the variance without the Planning Board having decided on the gap in coverage issue; Attorney Sousa said he denies application, on the applicant haks the hearings shoulds certain right o appeal he decie held concurrently. He sion to federal if either board court.the app Attorney Sousa noted the ZBA application is for a dimensional variance. Ryan Monte de Ramos, TMobile RF Engineer, explained he determined TMobile's gap in coverage and explained the existing sites in Mansfield, including rooftop units at 127 North Main, 241 Francis, 230 Oxford Road and existing monopoles at 200 Gilbert Street, 615 School Street and 520 West Streeidntsfied f ownetcovhey are coverage TMoMo ofle fill n With the existing sites, but said there is a gap the center Attorney Sousa said each wireless carrier has licenses issued by the FCC to provide coverage and explained the carriers try to identify in -vehicle and in -building coverage to 3/6/2018 provide seamless service. He explained there is no exiting structure or tower in the area they can construct a new tower on. other wireless Ms. Garber -Miller asked if all the companies have a similar gap re coverage and asked if they could collocate. Attorney Sousa said they collocate where possible; he said the large carriers cooperate to do that. He said Eco -Site has been told Verizon has the same gap in coverage and are interested in locating on this site as well. He said he does not know if the other carriers have similar issues. Attorney Sousa said this tower is proposed to be 90 feet tall and could accommodate three carriers. Attorney Sousa explained the nature of the gap is in the residential area around the industrially -zoned site on which the tower is proposed. He said they also looked at other areas in residential zones and on conservation land. Mr. Gallagher said the map appears to show this tower would provide a small amount of new coverage, which he said does not seem to be a large benefit. Mr. Sousa said he is not speaking on behalf of Verizon and said his statement was that Verizon is interested in locating on this site. Mr. Gallagher said it looks like many more towers would be needed to close all the gaps. Attorney Sousa said communication companies have the right to provide coverage to the public, and they have to build an infrastructure to ensure that. He said providing reliable coverage to residential neighborhoods is important, and this tower would help to fill in the gap. He said they still will not have total coverage in every part of town even with this tower, so they have to continue to build their network. Mr. Correira asked how this request for a variance differs from the normal applications the board receives. Attorney Sousa said the application addresses the standards for a variance and said the Telecommunications Act prevents towns from prohibiting the expansion of wireless networks. Keenan Brian, TMobile and Eco -Site Network Building and Construction, explained he reviews the search area and the Zoning By -Law to identify candidate sites and structures, and prioritizes the available properties. He said be reviewed several locations, but did not find anything available to meet their needs. He said parcels to the west were limited because of the airport and other parcels had access issues. He said he talked to the owners of Flint Farm, Newland Farm and Mill Street rear, who initially expressed interest but did not continue discussions. He said he did not hear back from some land owners. He sad he found the only raider he Zoning Streetlparcel. He explained he l contacts owners tof potential $pr pertiesaby mails the Branch and telephone. Ms. Garber -Miller said the airport would seem to be a logical place for a tower; Mr. Brian said it would be limited there because of the height. Attorney Sousa said they do not want to build structures that have to be lit, which would be required at the airport. He 3/6/2018 said they filed an FAA determination letter, but thinks they would be able to install 136 - foot tower on the Branch Street site without lighting. Attorney Sousa said many of the locations they looked at would have required a use variance. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the new Municipal Complex had been considered; Attorney Sousa said that would be too close to their existing sites. He said towns can issue RFPs making town -owned sites available, but he is not aware of one for the municipal complex. Attorney Sousa said the application includes a report indicating the electromagnetic impact at the base of the tower would be less than one percent of what is allowed. Attorney Sousa said this is a large lot and explained why the proposed tower could not simply be moved 46 feet to the east to eliminate the need for a variance. He said there is a ground -mounted solar facility on the property, and the tower cannot cause any shadowing, as well as a fair amount of wetlands and an Activity Use Limitation on the property. He said those elements were the reasons the tower was placed where it is. Mr. Maxwell asked where the closest residence is; Attorney Sousa explained that is on Lincoln Road. Attorney Sousa explained they did a balloon test with the balloon at 90 feet to represent the top of the tower, and the application includes photosimulations. He explained the original application had proposed a traditional monopole, but are now proposing a "monopine" to try to minimize the visual impacts of the tower. He said the antennas would not extend over 90 feet. Mr. Shannon asked if they could go higher than 90 feet; Attorney Sousa said that would require an additional height variance. He said right now, TMobile is asking for 90 feet. Mr. Shannon asked if they have added to other sites; Attorney Sousa said they have added 10-20 feet, but there are limitations on how much higher they could go based on the structure of the tower. Mark Correnti, real estate agent and appraiser, explained the possible impacts of the grant of this application on property values. He said they identify cell towers and look at the sales of surrounding properties with a view of the tower. He said the FCC has identified five towers in Mansfield, but there has been a lack of sales of homes with a view of those towers. Mr. Correnti said he looked at home sales in other area towns, compared sale prices and spoke to the brokers. Mr. Correira asked if the main comparison issue was house size; Mr. Correnti said it was. Mr. Correira said there could be many other issues impacting sales. Mr. Correnti said there is a tower at 30 Reservoir Street, next to The Village at the Pointe. He said those units are all equally impacted by the tower because they all have the same view. He said that 90 -foot tower was installed in 1998, and The Village at the Ponte was 3/6/2018 built in the early 2000s; Mr. Correnti said the broker he spoke to said she did not think the tower was a problem for that development. He said appraisers measure value, they do not set value; he said the buyers set the value. He said according to his report, buyers are not negatively affected by a tower in the area. Mr. Correria asked if appraisers take into account the existence of a cell tower; Mr. Correnti said they do. Mr. Gallagher said he does not think the real estate comparables are really comparable. Attorney Sousa said they compared similar sized houses; Mr. Gallagher said the comparison is not of similar neighborhoods. Attorney Sousa said the comparison did not include houses with other issues, like failed Title V. Mr. Gallagher said he thinks the comparison is a bit misleading. Attorney Sousa said the environmental issues are addressed in the application; they will be below 1% of the allowable limits. He said they have filed a NEPA application, which addresses issues like impacts on tribal lands, invasive species and impacts on historic sites. He said they do not have a date for a NEPA site visit. They are putting together an application to the Conservation Commission and anticipate an Amended Order of Conditions because do not expect to impact the wetlands. Attorney Sousa said their towers will be built to industrial standards. Public Comment James Farley, 18 Lincoln Road, said his house is closest to the proposed tower; he said he uses TMobile and has reception in his house. He said he questions the claims of a gap in coverage. He asked what would happen if the 90 -foot tower falls; he said there is a bike path and a number of children in the neighborhood. He said in his opines thaa ower similar property without a tower near it would be worth more than a property nearby. Mr. Farley said he looked at the other potential sites and said the application did not ere not interested. He said he doesn't think the explain why some of the owners w applicant has conducted good due diligence on the other possible properties. He said he asked the Board of Selectmen last week if the town would be interested in leasing town - owned land for a use like this; the Board of Selectmen voted 5-0 to authorize the Town Manager to talk to TMobile about delaying this proposal and looking at town -owned land for this use. He said the Finance Committee was also interested in that idea. He said the Congregational Church is also interested in the idea of leasing space in its spire for a use like this. He said any of these sites would be better for the residents and the town. Mr. Farley asked the board to delay this application to look at alternative sites. Robert Camp, 14 Lincoln Road, said he thinks the choice of location for the reference shots was poor and they do not give an accurate representation of the tower. He said the application says the tower will be 90 feet tall plus up to 10 feet for each additional carrier. He said this would be an eyesore for anyone with an unobstructed view and the simulations may not accurately reflect what the tower would look like. He said the 3/6/2018 landscape has changed after the loss of trees for the installation of the solar farm and the recent wind storm. Sergio Martin, 10 Lincoln Road, said the cell companies analyze locations to install towers and he thinks this process was done upside down. He said he thinks the property owner wants to lease the property, rather than the cell company proposing a tower to the property owner. He said there is no signature of an officer from TMobile on the application. He said the TMobile website says there is no gap in coverage in Mansfield, but the application claims there is a gap. He said if a carrier were to do a study like this, it would have more details about the other possible locations. He said there have been studies that conclude cell towers have an impact on property values; he added it is common sense that residential property values would be impacted. Julia Camp, 14 Lincoln Road, said the Zoning By -Law requires the applicant to show a gap in coverage and a hardship proving this is the only available site, and said she thinks there are other sites the applicant did not examine. She said she thinks this is a case of the property owner approaching the carrier, not the other way around. She said it is reasonable to require an independent study before making a decision. She said the property descriptions are inaccurate, including property owned by "New England Realty Trust," which she said may have been "Natural Resources Trust" property. She said the data the applicant used for their analysis is out of date and cited one property, "Fruit Street Rear," which was sold to the town two years ago. She said the alternative site analysis seems incomplete and does not seem to include three or four town -owned sites along the bike path. She said the company would choose the site based on cost and ease of use, but this site has issues like the solar farm and an AUL. She said the application has inaccuracies, including the address of the site, and there should be a peer review. Sarah Pack, 295 Branch Street, said the appraiser said he looked at properties with "towers in the distance" and said this would not be in the distance. She said the applicant used the phrase "significant" coverage and asked what "significant" means. She said her house is two lots down from the solar farm, and the house next to the solar farm sold for $20,000 less than her house. She said she has Verizon and has no problems with cell coverage. She asked why the setback is 500 feet and asked if there is a hardship with this application. Darlene Lopez, 36 Deer Path Lane, asked how many customers have actually requested more cell coverage. She said she disagrees with the real estate analysis, saying her neighborhood is quiet and residential and she thinks a cell tower would negatively impact home values. She suggested the real estate appraisal study should be independent of the applicant. She asked if there is another way to get coverage other than a tower and if the emissions greater at the top than at the bottom of the tower. Amy Fraser, Branch Street, said the applicant said they are entitled to a variance because of the significant gap in coverage and refers to the RF study. She said the one page signed by TMobile does not say there is a "significant gap in coverage," so she does not they have proved there is a significant gap. She said the ring around where they expect to have additional coverage is very small and doesn't have very much more developable 3/6/2018 area, so she doesn't think there are any new customers to be added there. She said she agrees the hearing should be left open so an independent reviewer can look at the information and the public has time to review the information presented to the board. Ms. Garber -Miller said the public hearing will be left open and continued to April 3, 2018. Attorney Sousa asked if the board would vote to hire an independent analysis prior to the next hearing. Mr. Gallagher suggested the consultant should work with both the ZBA and Planning Board, Motion: To continue the public hearing to April 3, 2018 (Gallagher -Pruitt) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To hire an outside consultant, in conjunction with the Planning Board, to review the application materials, to be paid for by the applicant (Gallagher -Pruitt) All in favor. PASSES VOTES 10 Columbine Road Finding Motion: To find that the reconstruction of the house at 10 Columbine Road constitutes an increase in the pre-existing, non -conformity (Cummings -Gallagher) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To find the increase in the pre-existing, non -conforming condition, in accordance with the "Zoning Plan 10 Columbine Road" dated November 2, 2017, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc., is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition (Cummings -Pruitt) All in favor. PASSES 40 Casa Drive Finding Motion: To find that the proposed addition to the garage at 40 Casa Drive constitutes an increase in the pre-existing, non -conformity (Cummings -Gallagher) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To find the increase in the pre-existing, non -conforming condition, in accordance with the "Proposed House Addition at Hse. No. 40 Casa Drive," dated January 29, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current condition; subject to the submission of a revised plan showing the garage will be three stories rather than two (Cummings -Pruitt) All in favor. PASSES 101 Plain Street Motion: To grant a variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-1.5.17, Lot width and 230-4.2A, Density and Dimensional Regulations, Residential Districts, Lot Frontage and Lot Area, to reconfigure a lot [existing house 9101, shown as "Lot E"j with less than the 3/6/2018 Mr. Gallagher said Lot A is an easement, which would continue with the 101 Plain Street property even if it were sold; however, the new owner could do what they want on that property, as long as it doesn't prevent access to 111 Plain Street. He asked if the board could approve a variance that creates a non -conformity to an existing lot. Ms. Garber - Miller said she isn't sure this benefits 101 Plain Street, since that lot would be losing land. Mr. Correira said 111 Plain has plenty of frontage. Mr. Gallagher said he understands why the applicant is proposing this, but said he does not think there is a hardship. Ms. Garber -Miller said it could be argued that the shape of the lot is a hardship, but she said both houses already exist and neither is being changed. Mr. Gallagher said Lot E currently includes Lot A, which is the easement, so whoever buys that land in the fixture would have to understand that. Ms. Garber -Miller said that would be in the title. Mr. Gallagher said he thinks Lot E would be easier to sell in the future without the easement attached. Ms. Garber -Miller said the small lot at 101 Plain Street is not out of place with other houses on Plain Street, but said she isn't sure she would want to make that lot non -conforming. Mr. Gallagher said he doesn't think there is a hardship. 0 in favor. 5 opposed. 0 abstentions. FAILS January 9, 2018 minutes Motion: To accept the January 9, 2018 minutes (Shannon -Cummings) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 10:45 p.m. ( Shannon -Pruitt) All in favor. P Date of next meeting: April 3, 2018 at 7:30 p.m.((// arlene ruitt, Clerk Date e 3/6/2018