Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 09/18/2018CEIV Town of Mansfie�E�N CLERKS OFFICE Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 18, 2011119 FEB IS A la 39 The Zoning Board of Appeals held its regular meeting in the Town Hall a" ( ((ev�ent at the hearing were the following members: Elisabeth Garber -Miller, Chair; Darle �P�n t fK�Rtthew Cummings; Philip Shannon; Aaron Gallagher; Associated Member Eric Correira. U tt �( TS 1. Meeting opened at 7:30 pm. 2. Janet and Patrick Quinn, 15 River Edge Road, Map 33, Parcel 111. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Janet and Patrick Quinn for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Rear Yard Setback, to allow an existing deck that was constructed with a 28 -foot rear yard setback, where 40 feet is required at 16 River Edge Road (Assessor's Map 33, Parcel 111) in the Residential 1 (111) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on August 31, 2018 and September 7, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on July 10, 2018; • Zoning Plan 16 River Edge Road dated June 28, 2018, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc., representing Janet and Patrick Quinn, said the Quinns purchased the house in 1999 and at the time a deck was installed at the back of the house. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the Quinns installed the deck or if it was already there. Mr. Trowbridge said the deck was actually there when the Quinns purchased the house. However, the deck was too close to the rear lot line, so the builder pulled the deck from the house, got an as -built plan without the deck on the house and then reassembled the deck to the house. Mr. Trowbridge said the deck has been there for 19 years and, for a clear title, the best route is to seek a variance. Mr. Trowbridge said the plan shows the deck 28 feet from the rear property line. Ms. Garber -Miller asked how the Quinns found out about the deck and what the builder did. Mr. Trowbridge said they were aware of the issue when they closed on the house. There were no public comments. Mr. Trowbridge said under Mass General Laws, the deck would be considered pre-existing, non -conforming after ten years. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the application of Janet and Patrick Quinn for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2.A, Rear Yard Setback, to allow an existing deck that was constructed with a 28 -foot rear yard setback, where 40 feet is required at 16 River Edge Road (Assessor's Map 33, Parcel 111) in the Residential 1 (131) zone, in accordance with Zoning Plan 16 River Edge Road dated June 28, 2018, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Pruitt said the deck has been there 19 years. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:34 pm. 3. Daniel and Julia Cueller Martin, 15 Spring Street, Map 27, Parcel 19. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Daniel and Julia Cueller Marin for a Finding/Variance from the Zoning By -Law Section 230-7.2(4), Findings, for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming structure and 230-4.2A, Front Yard and Rear Yard Setback, for an addition with a 22 -foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required and a 9.6 rear yard setback where 30 feet is required at 15 Spring Street (Assessor's Map 27, Parcel 19) in the Residential 3 (R3) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on August 31, 2018 and September 7, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on June 25,2018; • Proposed House Addition at No. 15 Spring Street, Mansfield, MA dated June 21, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc.; • Request for Continuance dated July 31, 2018. Applicant was not present. Mr. Shannon made the motion to continue the hearing on the application of Daniel and Julia Cueller Marin for a Finding/Variance from the Zoning By -Law Section 230-7.2(4), Findings, for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming structure and 230-4.2A, Front Yard and Rear Yard Setback, for an addition with a 22 -foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required and a 9.6 rear yard setback where 30 feet is required at 15 Spring Street (Assessors Map 27, Parcel 19) in the Residential 3 (113) zone. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 7:41 pm. 4. Evan Sohn and Stanley Sohn, 601 & 619 East Street, Map 33, Parcels 18 and 119. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Evan Sohn and Stanely Sohn for a Finding/Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-3.4.108 and 230-6.2 to allow for the change, extension, alteration or reconstruction of a pre-existing, non -conforming use at 601 and 619 East Street (Assessor's Map 18, Parcels 18 and 119) in the Business 3 (83) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on August 31, 2018 and September 7, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on June 25, 2018; • Site Plan 601 & 621 East Street dated January 8, 2017, prepared by Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins -Trowbridge Associates, Inc., representing Evan and Stanley Sohn, explained Dr. Sohn built the original animal hospital at this site in 1975, and in 1986, a kennel was added to the rear of the property. He said Evan Sohn recently purchased the single-family house in the front of the property. Mr. Trowbridge said they have tried to do a layout that will better the traffic situation currently there; he noted the traffic and parking lot are not a part of this filing because they have the right to build without approval except for the Planning Board. He said the only reason they are here tonight is because they are proposing a 60'x60' building, which is considered the actual extension of use. He said they are creating a driveway that will be south of Franklin Street with one way in and out of the property. He said they are proposing to build a parking area in front of the existing kennel with a walkway from the parking area to the proposed building; he noted the proposed building is not much bigger than most of the houses currently being built. Mr. Trowbridge said the Sohns wanted a building that would be different rather than a flat one-story metal building and, aesthetically, the proposed building fits much better than a metal building. He said the purpose of the building will be small offices but, more importantly, to keep the dogs now being kept outside for walking purposes inside; currently they walk the dogs all over the property. He said this should reduce any noise from the dogs, not add to the noise for the neighbors. Mr. Trowbridge said Heron Crest abuts the property and the Sohns worked with Heron Crest when they proposed some buffering and fencing; he said currently there is buffering between the existing building at Heron Crest and the proposed building, which is significantly lower than the Heron Crest buildings and will fit in nicely, improve the current situation, and fit a need. Mr. Trowbridge said this is in a business zone and the applicant is looking for a Finding for the expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Ms. Garber-Miller asked if the kennel would stay where it is. Mr. Trowbridge said yes and the additional building will be where they walk the dogs. Ms. Pruitt asked if the dogs are outside at any point. Mr. Trowbridge said currently the dogs are outside in the fenced area behind the kennel but are free to be walked anywhere on the property. Ms. Sohn said the perimeter of the property is fenced in. Mr. Trowbridge said the only change will be the creation of the building and the dogs will be inside. Mr. Gallagher asked if this would expand the amount of dogs they can have on site. Mr. Trowbridge said yes but most of the dogs will be their existing clients that are currently being boarded. Ms. Garber-Miller asked if there would be a significant increase. Mr. Trowbridge said there would not. Ms. Pruitt asked about the corner setback from the proposed building and the Heron Crest property line. Mr. Trowbridge said the setback is 20.5 feet at the closest corner. He said dimensionally, floor to area ratio and setbacks, they are looking for no variances and are well within the zoning by-laws. Rick Farius, president of the Heron Crest Association, explained there are 30+ residents here tonight to speak in opposition to the project, with a petition to be submitted to the board signed by 80 of the residents. He said currently there are 82 units in 13 buildings, with some of the buildings adjacent to the property the Applicant is proposing to expand upon. He said the residents have hired an attorney, Edward Valanzola, who will speak on their behalf and represent their interests. Mr. Trowbridge said he believed there was a clause in the deed to the owners of Heron Crest that specified there were dogs next door and, if there were legal issues regarding this, the Sohns would have the right, at the expense of the Heron Crest owners, to have an attorney; Mr. Trowbridge asked for a continuance to the next meeting. Attorney Valanzola said Mr. Trowbridge was referring to 1986 when there was an agreement between the developer of Heron Crest and Mr. Sohn that they would not object to what the Sohns were doing and would not get into any legal issues as long as it exists as it does today. Attorney Valanzola said the agreement did not address any expansion and said if Mr. Trowbridge has a deed or there is a document that says he has a right to have an attorney present and continue the hearing, he should have produced the document and hired an attorney. Ms. Garber-Miller said the Board is at a disadvantage if they do not have all the documents. Mr. Trowbridge said he was not aware of the agreement he referred to until Ms. Sohn mentioned it tonight before the hearing. Attorney Valanzola said he has the Declaration of Covenants, which was recorded at the Registry of Deeds and also the development agreement that was signed by the declarant on the master deed; he said he does not see anything that says they have the right to have an attorney present and to continue the hearing. Ms. Garber-Miller said the Board wanted to see the agreements. Ms. Pruitt read into the record the petition submitted by the Heron Crest residents. Attorney Valanzola addressed the application, the hearing notice and which by-laws and the standard of review for these by-laws. He said the two by-laws before the board for consideration are 230: 7.2(B)(2) and (B)(4), for variances, findings, and special permits and the standard, which is why the appliant is before the Board tonight on a legal non-conforming use, the kennel. He said this is not permitted in the B2 zone. Attorney Valanzola said the benefits of the proposed project have to outweigh its detrimental effects and said Mr. Trowbridge did not speak to the benefits of the project, he spoke about the traffic. Attorney Valanzola said the one way in and out might improve things but, what is the general benefit to the use of the property, to the area, and to the town from this expansion. Attorney Valanzola said a 3,600 square- foot building is going to be built for a doggie day care and there probably won't be only a couple of dogs for the development they are proposing. He said the burden is on the Applicant to present the type of density, the current volume, the volume increase, and how it is going to be changed. He said this is not for dog walking, it is for a doggie day care and is an expansion of the non -conforming use, which is the kennel. He said the standard the Board has to weigh is do the benefits outweigh the detrimental effects. Regarding the traffic, Attorney Valanzola said this is a difficult intersection at Franklin Street and Route 106, with a single lane each way and asked if there would be a right turn only. He said there has been no traffic study done, nothing that says this is a safe area, and how many additional cars and trips per day will be added, which would cause additional noise. He said there is supposed to be insulation to help with any noise created by the dogs barking. He asked about the hours of operation. Attorney Valanzola said the applicant has to meet the technical requirements of the by-laws; Section 230:4.3(F)(b), Landscaping Requirements: landscaped buffer strips shall also be provided along the side and rear lot lines wherever a commercial or industrial zone abuts a residential zone and Section 230:4.3(F)(2)(d), Opaque Screening: Opaque screens. For developments adjoining or facing residential districts or residential uses or when necessary for public safety or to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, a buffer strip shall contain opaque screen, maybe comprised of walls, fences, berms or evergreen planting, or any combination thereof. Mr. Gallagher asked how much lower does the top of the proposed building sit to the Heron Crest elevation and is the top of the building above the existing berm. He said he agreed with the landscaping buffer but not with the opaque screen. Mr. Shannon asked if the residents of Heron Crest knew about the kennel before they bought the property. Attorney Valanzola said in 1986, the parties reach an agreement where Heron Crest could be built and the Sohns waived any appeals'and the kennel was allowed. Ms. Garber -Miller said Attorney Valanzola is talking about the fact the parties agreed the business, a kennel and veterinary hospital, could continue as it was, not in terms of the physical parameters, but as the use of the business. Attorney Valanzola said they need the board's permission to expand a non -conforming use. Mr. Gallagher asked if there is currently a doggie day care and how many dogs are on site. Evan Sohn said it varies how many dogs come in for day care but there would be approximately 10 dogs; he said the issue they have is there is not a lot of indoor space to let the dogs run and they do not want to bother the neighbors by having the dogs outside all the time. He said by creating the other building they are serving their existing clientele and offering another service by having the dogs run and play daily in the proposed building. Mr. Gallagher asked if there is a plan to have more dogs in the building than they would currently have on a normal day. Evan Sohn said potentially yes, but no more than 20 dogs. He said it may increase more but they are not building to increase their clientele, but to better serve the current clientele. He said traffic patterns and the amount of people that come into the property vary quite a bit based on the time of the year; he noted during the summer months the kennel is completely full, with more people and dogs coming in and out than would be in the winter time. Mr. Correira asked what the maximum occupancy is now and what would it be if this building were to be built. Evan Sohn said currently there are 48 dogs and there would be an additional 20 dogs with the new building. Mr. Gallagher asked if a traffic study had been done. Mr. Trowbridge said a traffic study was not done because twenty vehicle trips is not something you would do a study for. Mr. Gallagher said adding the driveway and making it a right turn only would make the situation better. Mr. Trowbridge said by separating the intersection, they have actually eliminated one traffic movement and he said the police, fire and engineering departments have reviewed this and everyone is happy. He said there was a department head meeting and all agreed it is a significant improvement. Mr. Gallagher asked what dictates the capacity of the kennel. Evan Sohn said the kennel only has 48 runs and they would not accept more dogs because the proposed building is not big enough; he noted there is a requirement of roughly 10-20 square feet per dog. He said a lot of the space would be for offices and break/restrooms but two-thirds of the proposed building would be for the dogs. He said there will be insulation in the new building, as the existing kennel does, to deaden the sound. As to the dogs barking, Evan Sohn said they currently have a veterinary hospital and a kennel, so 10-20 more dogs to serve the 4 current clientele would not increase the amount of dogs barking in the parking lot. Attorney Valanzola said the proposed building would be 20 feet from a residential property. Evan Sohn said currently the parking lot is by the kennel and closer to Heron Crest. Attorney Valanzola said you are increasing the volume and the dogs will be walking to the new building. Ms. Garber -Miller asked how far the closest Heron Crest building is to the proposed building and would it be lower than the Heron Crest buildings. Mr. Trowbridge said there is a significant drop, roughly 60 feet from the back left corner of the proposed building. Evan Sohn explained by moving the parking lot they are benefitting the area by greening up the space and moving the clientele and staff parking away from Heron Crest. He said the entrance to the proposed building is away from Heron Crest so currently, on a busy day, the dogs are closer than they would be in the future. Attorney Valanzola said the burden is on the applicant to provide objective documentation, such as a traffic study/report and show specifications of the sound proofing. Mr. Trowbridge respectfully requested a continuance to the next meeting so they could submit additional paperwork and get answers to the questions Attorney Valanzola mentioned tonight. For the record, Attorney Valanzola objected to the request to continue the meeting. Mr. Shannon made the motion to continue the hearing of Evan Sohn and Stanley Sohn to November 27, 2018. Ms. Pruitt seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Trowbridge said he will come back with information on the soundproofing, and the elevations/height of the proposed building compared to Heron Crest. He said they will review the legal documents with their own attorney, submit the letters from the Fire and Police Departments approving the driveway and location, and will consider some landscaping on the hill. Hearing ended at 9:00 pm. 5. Michael Hilsinger, Conserv Group, Inc., 11 North Main Street, Map 27, Parcel 93. The Chair read the public hearing notice for the application of Michael Hilsinger, ConSery Group, Inc., for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.4, Off -Street Parking and Loading, to allow ten (10) parking spaces wher fifteeen (15) are required for ten (10) residential units at 11 North Main Street, (Assessor's Map 27, Parcel 93) in the Business 2 (132) zone. The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on August 31, 2018 and September 7, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on August 10, 2018; • Apartment Conversion 11 North Main Street Mansfield, MA dated August 1, 2018, prepared by River Hawk Environmental. Michael Hilsinger, ConSery Group, Inc., said last year, the previous owner proposed five (5) three-bedroom townhouse -style residential units, which the Planning Board approved. He said the owner then determined the project was not financially viable and sold the property to the abutting property owner, Dr.Tim Lynch, who is proposing ten (10) one -bedroom units. Mr. Hilsinger said they are going to try to incorporate the ten units in the existing church building. He said currently, the property has no parking or curb cuts, so it would be difficult to meet any of the parking requirements. He said a residential use would be the least impactful in terms of traffic and parking. He said the Zoning By -Law requires 1.5 parking spaces, regardless of th size of the units. Mr. Hilsinger said this project is going from 15 bedrooms to 10 bedrooms and he hopes the board will see this as an improvement. Mr. Hilsinger said because there were previously two separate property owners, an easement was required to access parking on Dr. Lynch's property for parking for 11 North Main Street. He said with this plan, all ten parking spaces will be devoted to the new building. Dr. Lynch now owns both properties, but the easement will stay in place because they are two separate lots. Ms. Garber -Miller said in the B2 zone, the requirement is for 2.0 spaces, not 1.5 spaces, so 20 spaces are required. Mr.Gallagher said basically there would be one spot per unit. Mr. Hilsinger said the proposed ten units with one parking space each would be better than seven spaces for five three-bedroom units; he said a three-bedroom apartment is more likely to have multiple cars. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the parking spaces would be in the same area as the previous plan; Mr. Hilsinger said they would be. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the units would be condos. Mr. Hilsinger said they would be rental apartments. Ms. Garber -Miller noted the other plan was for condos with deeded parking spaces; Mr. Hilsinger said each of the units would have a designated space. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if visitors would have access to the parking at the building next door; Mr. Hilsinger said they would. Ms. Pruitt said tenants would not be guaranteed a space if someone had a guest. Mr. Hilsinger there would be no guarantee of a parking space at times, but noted there is on -street parking. Mr. Correira said people who rent one bedroom apartments would likely have only one car. Dr. Robert Siblia, 25 North Main Street, said he is not against the proposal. He said he was in favor of the previous proposal with five units, but said he is concerned because there is no on -street parking during the day. He said he likes the proposal for ten one -bedroom units and asked if there would be any changes to the building. Mr. Hilsinger said the changes would be to the interior. Dr. Lynch said the main issue is the parking; he said his lot is so small his patients have to park on the street during the day. Theresa Campbell, 20 Samoset Avenue, said she thought 1.5 parking spaces were required for every unit and asked when the requirement changed to 2.0 spaces. Ms.Garber-Miller explained 1.5 spaces are required in a different zone. Mr. Shannon made the motion to approve the application of Michael Hilsinger, ConSery Group, Inc., for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.4, Off -Street Parking and Loading, to allow ten (10) parking spaces where fifteeen (15) are required for ten (10) residential units at 11 North Main Street, (Assessor's Map 27, Parcel 93) in the Business 2 (132) zone, in accordance with the plan Apartment Conversion 11 North Main Street Mansfield, MA dated August 1, 2018, prepared by River Hawk Environmental. Mr. Gallagher seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Cummings said he thinks having ten parking spaces makes sense. Ms. Garber -Miller said the proximity to the train station will mean people will walk to the station and may not have two cars. She said it is a congested area, but the alternative is to remove the church and build an apartment building. Mr. Shannon said the removal of the church would be a loss to the town. Motion passed 5-0-0. Hearing ended at 9:23 pm. 6. Foremarc Realty Trust, LLC„ 23 Church Street, Map 24, Parcel 80. The Chair read the public hering notice on the application of Foremarc Realty Trust, LLC for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.213, Floor Area Ratio, to allow 0.59 FAR where a maximum 0.50 FAR is allowed for the construction of two (2) duplexes at 23 Church Street (Assessor's Map 24, Parcel 180) in the Business 2(82)zone The following documents were introduced at the public hearing: • Copy of public hearing notice, which ran in the Mansfield News on August 31, 2018 and September 7, 2018; • Application for Variance, filed with the Town Clerk's Office on August 16, 2018; • Proposed Units at No. 23 Church Street Mansfield MA dated August 13, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. rl Christopher Marcheselli, Foremarc Realty, LLC, said 23 Church Street is the former St. Mary's Church rectory. He explained the existing five -bedroom house with an accessory apartment in the basement, is in the B2 zone, which requires two parking spaces per unit. He is proposing two duplexes on the property, each with a two -car garage. He said there are a number of multi -family buildings in the area. Mr. Marcheselli said the lot is 13,000 square feet, so he could build a 6,500 square -foot residential building with a special permit from the Planning Board. Mr. Marcheselli said if the proposal was mixed-use, he could build a 20,000 square -foot building, but he would have to meet the parking requirement for the first - floor business and two spaces for each of the residential units. He said one of his original ideas was to build ten one -bedroom units, but he said he thinks two duplexes would fit into the neighborhood and be a benefit to the town. Mr. Marcheselli said a parking facility is a by -right use in this zone, but he said he does not feel this would be good for the neighborhood. He said he is asking for an 18% increase in the Floor Area Ratio, 0.59, where a maximum of 0.50 is allowed and noted basements and garages are not included in the FAR calculation. He said he is proposing to build the units approximately 250 square feet larger than the 0.50 FAR would allow and would like to market to empty nesters who want all the amenities and want to stay in town. He said he could also build a seven -unit building on the property, but said he wants to reduce the density and build nice, economically -viable units, which is why he is requesting the FAR increase. He said his proposal would increase the building's size by 1,272 square feet, to be spread over the four units. He noted the existing house was partially destroyed by water damage and repairing it would not make sense financially. Ms. Garber -Miller asked if the driveway for the four units would be off Church Street. Mr. Marcheselli said that is what he plans to propose to the Planning Board, with the facade facing Bristol Street. Mr. Cummings asked what the hardship is. Mr.Marcheselli said the hardship is that with the water damage, it would be a financial hardship to keep it as a single-family home. He said he is trying to improve what is there, make it more economically viable and reduce the density to make the project work. Mr. Cummings said the board cannot consider financial issues as a hardship. Mr. Marcheselli said the existing building will be removed and, by reducing the number of units, the new construction would be a benefit. He said the units would be owner -occupied, which would be a benefit to the town. He said a parking lot, which could potentiallly park 45 cars, or offices, banks or daycare centers are also by -right uses in this zone. Therese Campbell, 30 Samoset Avenue, said if this project is not approved, Mr. Marcheselli can build 12 units or a parking lot. She said the proposed building is very large. Mr. Marcheselli said the maximum FAR would allow five 1,300 square -foot condo row houses. A resident said this building was the old church rectory and it should stay. He said there are already traffic problems on Church Street and Bristol Street, Paula Prior, 23 Church Street, said this is a 140 -year old building, is in disrepair and will be removed. She said she is pleased with Mr. Marcheselli's plan to keep the residential nature as opposed to a business use. Mr. Cummings asked the size of the existing house; Ms. Prior said it is approximately 3,300 square feet. Mr. Marcheselli said it is a beautiful building and it could remain a single-family home. He said one of the uses could be a group home or sober house with five -bedrooms and an accessory apartment, but that would be ADA -protected and zoning would not come into effect. Mr. Cummings made the motion to approve the application of Foremarc Realty Trust, LLC for a Variance from Zoning By -Law Section 230-4.2B, Floor Area Ratio, to allow 0.59 FAR where a maximum 0.50 FAR is allowed for the construction of two (2) duplexes at 23 Church Street (Assessor's Map 24, Parcel 180) in the Business 2 (132) zone, in accordance with the plan Proposed Units at No. 23 Church Street Mansfield MA dated August 13, 2018, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. Shannon seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr.Cummings said he understands the need to remove the existing building, but said it is a perfectly square lot and there is really no hardship other than financial. Ms.Garber-Miller said she hates to see a beautiful old house removed, but said there has to be a hardship shown for the grant of a variance. She said she understands the potential for any number of things in this zone versus two buildings with no open space, but it still comes down to the requirement for a hardship. She said finances are not one of the considerations for a hardship. Mr.Cummings said if they could find a way to put in three or four units and meet the maximum floor area ratio, he would not have an issue. He said he would much prefer this plan over what is there now. Ms. Pruitt said she thinks the proposed project would be an improvement and would work within the neighborhood. Ms. Garber -Miller said maybe a change in the plan would work because the proposal is not that non- compliant. Mr. Shannon said he likes the idea and it blends in with the area. He said we don't know what someone else is going to present, which could be something more horrific than what is proposed now. He asked how the applicant could present the hardship to move forward and preserve Mansfield as best as possible. Ms.Garber-Miller said Mr. Marcheselli could revise the plan with an FAR only slightly more than allowed, but not as high as presented. Mr. Gallagher said there would still be an issue of proving a hardship. Ms. Garber -Miller agreed, but said if it was de minimis, there would be wiggle room. Motion failed 1-4-0 (Shannon in favor; Garber -Miller, Pruitt, Cummings, Gallagher opposed) Hearing ended at 9:45 pm. 7. New Business: CHAPPA (Citizen's Housing and Planning Association): Village at Cedar Heights Annual Eligibilty Certification 2018. All 17 of the affordable units were occupied, 16 households renewed their leases and there was one new tenant household. 8. Adjournment: Mr. Correira made the motion to adjourn at 10:00 pm. Mr. Cummings seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Next meeting will be November 27, 2018. Darlene Pruitt, Clerk Date