Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of zba 071707 ::~E ,.\y~o F \C;: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0-) Gei ,1 9~ 'l q MINUTES -l '""' '., " :'l- .'-...'-., " ""U · \,'."" p-~ 15 . r~ ,",," L~ \ I'H\ S~, iJ.n "JSET JULY 17.2007 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; Peter DeTrolio; Dave Rapoza, Associate Member; and JeffGarr, Associate Member. Mr. Rapoza was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Mackie. The application of Y ogen and Theresa Chemburkar for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of a front porch with less than the required side yard setback at 15 Plowshare Court in the R-I Zone began at 7:30 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Zoning Plan 15 Plowshare Court dated June 15,2007 and prepared by Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, Inc., Mansfield, MA was labeled as Exhibit "C". There was no letter from the Planning Board. Mr. Chemburkar explain that he would like to add a 38'x 8' porch to the front of the house to increase the value and aesthetics of the home. He further explained that this is an odd-shaped, pie-shaped lot and it lies on the 15-foot setback. They would like to put a farmer's porch on the front of the house. The porch will be opened and not screened in. The neighbor's house is set back and the property looks like his, but is technically theirs. Side note: Have the Building Inspector put something in writing if this is cluster subdivision so the Board knows exactly what they are requesting a variance for. Also have put on the plans that each applicant provides what the by-law requires and what the applicant is requesting as relief. The hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. The Board discussed the September schedule. Unless we have a lot of applications, plan the meeting for September 18th. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Rapoza to grant the variance to Mr. Chemburkar. Hardship is the lot shape and size. (Unanimously granted 5-0). (Vultaggio, Butler, Garber-Miller, DeTrolio, Rapoza.) ~ -~ r. MINUTES OF JULY 17.2007 Pae:e 2 of 6 JeffGarr was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Mackie The application of Roy and Karen Bain for a Finding from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of a second story addition to a single-family home, with less than the required front yard setback at 12 John Street in the R-2 Zone began at 7:45 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; a Sewage Disposal Plan Upgrade for #12 John Street in Mansfield, MA dated April 10, 2007 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C"; and Elevation Drawings, Bain Residence New Second Floor, 12 John Street, Mansfield, MA dated May 24, 2007 and prepared by Lamar Design Build, llc, 60 Pine Street, Mansfield, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "D". Mr. and Mrs. Bain introduced themselves and explained that they would like to add a second floor to their 2-bedroom home and this will not change the footprint of the 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 5-0. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller that this extension is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. Unanimously approved 5-0. Unanimously granted 5-0. (Vultaggio, Butler, Garber-Miller, DeTrolio, Garr). The discussion of the request for a six-month extension on Zecher was tabled until the next meeting on August 21 st. Dave Rapoza was appointed voting member for the next hearing in place of Mr. Mackie The application of Matthew J. Sheahan for a Variance from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the construction of a two-car garage and family room addition with less than the required front yard setback on a comer lot at 32 Bird Road in the R-l Zone began at 8:00 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; and a Plan of Proposed Addition to 32 Bird Road in Mansfield, MA dated June 14, 2007 and prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., Mansfield, MA was labeled as Exhibit "C". .~. T' MINUTES OF JULY 17. 2007 Pae:e 3 of 6 Mr. Sheahan introduced himself and the project architect, Barry Turner. Mr. Sheahan is requesting to add on a 24'x24' garage. They are on a comer lot and he is encroaching on the side yard setback. Due to the location of the neighbor's well, the septic system had to be located on the Serena Allen Way side of the house; and since they are on a comer lot, they have 40-foot setbacks. They are requesting a 2-foot variance at the comer of the garage only. They have the septic plans before the Board of Health in regard to whether or not they have to move the system. RIM will have to revise the plans because one says 37.5' and one says 38'. The hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. A Motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Ms. Garber-Miller to grant a Variance to Mr. Sheahan, with the condition that new plans be submitted. Unanimously granted (5-0). (Vultaggio, Butler, Garber-Miller, DeTrolio, Rapoza). A motion was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio to approve the Minutes of June 19,2007. Minutes approved 4-0. Mr. Butler abstained from voting on the minutes. Mr. Garr was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Mackie. The application of Daniel and Linda Noreck for a Finding from Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Law for the replacement of an existing concrete patio on the existing footprint and the construction of a porch, with less than the required front yard setback at 22 Chilson Avenue in the R-2 Zone began at 8:15 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; a Tape Survey Plan for Proposed Porch for 22 Chilson Avenue dated 4/1/77 and prepared by DesLauriers & Associates, Inc., Franklin, MA was labeled as Exhibit "C"; and Proposed Elevation Drawings for 22 Chilson Avenue, Mansfield, MA, dated 3/25/07 and revised 4/9/07 and prepared by D. Spears was labeled as Exhibit "D". Mr. Noreck explained that he would like to replace an existing concrete slab in disrepair with a 10'x20' porch on the same footprint. The neighbors told them that there was a porch originally there, and they found a patched door opening in the wall, in the same position as the door shown in the pictures.y The hearing closed at 8:20 P.M. MINUTES OF JULY 17.2007 Pae:e 4 of 6 A motion was made by Ms. Garber-Miller and seconded by Mr. Butler that this proposed addition constitutes an extension of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. Unanimously approved 5-0. A motion was made by Ms. Garber-Miller and seconded by Mr. Butler that this extension is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conformity. Unanimously approved 5-0. Unanimously granted 5-0. (Vultaggio, Butler, Garber-Miller, DeTrolio, Garr). Mr. Rapoza was appointed voting member for this hearing in place of Mr. Mackie. The application of Richard and Robert Folsom for a Finding and/or Special Permit from Section 4.2.1 in accordance with Section 3.10.4 of the Zoning By-Laws, for the change, extension or alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming use and structure for the removal of the current three-family home and the construction of a new three-family home at 112- 114 School Street in the R-2 Zone began at 8:15 P.M. The application was labeled as Exhibit "A"; a newspaper advertisement was labeled as Exhibit "B"; a Building Concept Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA 112-114 School Street, dated June 20, 2007 and prepared by Bay Colony Group, Inc., Foxborough, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "C"; and 3 Elevation Drawings prepared by VMY Vinola Architects, Inc., Newton, MA, was labeled as Exhibit "D". Mr. V alanzola introduced himself as attorney for the applicants Richard and Robert Folsom and Melanie Folsom. Rick Leslie, who prepared the plan, was present at the meeting. Mr. Valanzola explained that this application is for a Finding an/or in the alternative and only if required, a Special Permit pursuant to section 3.10.4 of the Massachusetts By- Laws. He further explained that in all districts, the change, extension or alteration of a pre-existing, non-conforming structure or use may be allowed when authorized to do so by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2, after a public hearing, provided, however, that such change, extension or alteration does not create a new non-compliance with any other use or dimensional requirement of this by- law. Also, change, extension, or alteration of a non-conforming residential structure may be permitted after a finding in according with the By-Law. Mr. Valanzola quoted a paragraph, "Pre-existing, non-conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the permit granting authority or by the special permit granting authority designated by ordinance or by-law that such change extension or alteration shall no be substantially more detrimental than the existing no-conforming use to the neighborhood." MINUTES OF JULY 17.2007 Pa2e 5 of6 Mr. Valanzola indicated that the existing three-family house, which consists of 3 two- bedroom apartments, was constructed over 100 years ago. The cost required to make repairs or alterations to this 100+ year old structure are prohibitive. The structural integrity of a new home is more beneficial than attempting to repair or alter a home that was constructed over 100 years ago. The existing house will be removed and the applicant proposes to construct a new three-family house that will be set back further from School Street, in compliance with the current by-law. In fact, the new three-family house will not create a new non-compliance with any other use or dimensional requirement of the Mansfield By-Law and will actually correct the front setback, changing it from 9' to 50'. Mr. Vultaggio asked the applicant if he would consider having one unit of the proposed building as an affordable unit. He further explained that the reason they have non- conforming uses is so they will go away, and this three family use should go away. Justin Dye, an abutter at 120 School Street, stated that is the last multi-family in the neighborhood. The applicants have collected rents for the past 29 years and have not done anything to improve the property. Also, he could find no record that this was ever a three- family home. He further requested that the Board deny this application. The hearing closed at 9: 15 P.M. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Rapoza that this is a Special Permit. Unanimously approved that this is a Special Permit. A Motion to discuss was made by Mr. Rapoza and seconded by Mr. DeTrolio. Mr. Vultaggio stated that he doesn't think a 3-family should be allowed to be built in this area. Mr. Butler stated that he is not happy with the drawings and he needs more information. Ms. Garber-Miller stated that if it is going to look like a single family house and looks consistent with the other homes, and does not stand out, it would be better than the current structure. A motion was made by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Rapoza to continue until the specs plan are presented to the Board and then they will be held to this dimensionally. Unanimously approved to continue the discussion and vote until August 21,2007. T' MINUTES OF JULY 17. 2007 Pa2e 6 of6 Mansfield Crossing, Relocation of Signs was heard at 9:45 P.M. The Board talked with Butch Fuller, Project Manager. The Board discussed the need for more information on where the proposed sign will be and exactly how high. They requested that the applicant put a stick or some type of yellow painted marker, so they can drive by and see the height and location of where this will be. The applicant explained that they will do what the Board is requesting and the reason for the location change is that they state is no giving them the proposed curb cut in the requested location, so that is why the location is changing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, . E~~~ Clerk . -~ IT