************************************************************
TAUNTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
CITY HALL, TAUNTON, MA 02780
*************************************************************
DATE: March 4, 2010 PAGE NO: 1
BOARD MEMBERS: 1. Daniel Dermody, Chrmn. 5. Anthony Abreau
2. Bob Campbell 6. Arthur Lopes
3. Manuel Spencer 7. Alan Medeiros
4. Richard Faulkner, Clk.
ADVISORS:
8. Mark Slusarz, City Engineer
9. Kevin Scanlon, City Planner
__________________________________________________________________________
Roll Call: Spencer, Lopes, Medeiros, Faulkner and Dermody, Campbell. Also present was City Planner Kevin Scanlon and City Engineer Mark Slusarz.
Meeting opens at 5:36 PM.
Arthur made motion to accept minutes of February 4, 2010, seconded by Manny. All in favor.
Bob made motion to revert out of the regular order of business. Seconded by Arthur. All in favor.
Public Hearing – Form J Plan – 125 Middleboro Avenue - Waiver of Frontage Requirements – to split one lot into two (See ZBA Case # 2997 – submitted by Socrates Vavolotis
Hearing opens at 5:37 PM. Roll Call: Spencer, Campbell, Lopes, Medeiros, Faulkner and Dermody present. Kevin read department letters from himself (City Planner) Water Dept, B.O.H., which were placed on record. Atty. David Gay was invited into the enclosure. Atty. Gay stated they received a variance for lot area and frontage. The property is located along the rail road track and has frontage (60’) on 2 streets. Bob asked if the ZBA put the no cut zone? Atty. Gay stated they offered that at the ZBA hearing. Manny asked if Lot 1 has own driveway? Atty. Gay answers yes.
Dick made motion to open public input, seconded by Alan. All in favor. No one appearing in favor or opposition.
Dick made motion to close public input, seconded by Arthur. All in favor.
Dick made motion to approve the Form J for 125 Middleboro Avenue, seconded by Bob. All in favor.
Hearing closed at 5:41 PM.
Public Hearing – Form J Plan – 81 Fairbanks Ave. – Waiver of Frontage - to split one lot into two lots – submitted by Mitchell Henault
Hearing opens at 5:41 PM. Roll Call: Spencer, Campbell, Lopes, Medeiros, Faulkner and Dermody present.
Kevin read department letters himself (City Planner) and Water Dept. which were placed on file
Mitchell Henault was invited into the enclosure. He stated he has frontage on Center Street and Fairbanks Avenue, received variance from ZBA. Bob asked if the driveway would be off Center Street? Mr. Henault answers yes.
Bob made motion to open public input, seconded by Dick. All in favor. No one appearing in favor or in opposition.
Alan made motion to close public input, seconded by Dick. All in favor.
Arthur made motion to approve the Form J Plan for 81 Fairbanks Ave., seconded by Bob. All in favor.
Hearing closed at 5:45 PM.
Special Permit-Site Plan Review – Class II (7-12 dogs) Kennel License – 80 Theresa ST. Need to forward a recommendation to Council
Catherine Cyr, 80 Theresa St. was invited into the enclosure. She has been running a rescue business from her home since 2004. She is requesting a public hearing with the council for kennel license and Special Permit/Site Plan Review. She takes in toy breed dogs, usually between 5lb & 10 lbs. dogs and get them re- hab and spayed or neutered and then places them into new home within the new England area. She needs waiver of the Kennel requirements relative to lot size, runs for dogs and contained area. She brings dogs out for walks supervised. Bob stated the submitted in application by abutters in favor shows there hasn’t’ been any problems.
Alan made motion to forward a positive recommendation to the Municipal Council, seconded by Bob. All in favor .
Request from Taunton Redevelopment Authority – Ronald H. Swartz, Chairman - Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendment.
Kevin stated this needs a public hearing with the Municipal Council and the P.B. needs to forward a recommendation. Kevin read letter from Ron Swartz, Taunton Development Authority into the record.
Bob made motion to invite petitioners into the enclosures, seconded by Dick. All in favor.
Atty. Robert Treano, James Dorsey, Ronald Swartz, Jan Alden were invited into the enclosure. Atty. Treano stated back in 1978 they have changed the Downtown Urban Renewal plan 3 other times. Those times it concerned the Taylor Building, Union Street and Weir Street. All they need from the P.B. is a vote stating it conforms to the Master Plan. They need vote to designate 107-111 Main Street, building next to City Hall, also known as Leonard Block to have it “not be acquired”. Manny asked if there was an updated plans? Kevin stated the Master Plan was done in 1998 and the Urban Renewal Plan in 1978. Those are the most updated. Atty. Treano gave some background on receiving grant monies to do some project. Some of those
project consisted of High Street, in 1966 and downtown area, Court Street Urban Renewal plan. He stated that William Fitzgerald and now Kevin Shea has been making changes for the past few years. He stated the Urban Renewal Plan addressed the whole site. Manny had concerns with the parking for the new courthouse? Atty. Treano stated the Urban Renewal Plan has helped Morton Hospital, Boy & Girls Clubs, Mill Pond Apartments, School Street apartments. Not to mention 30-40 business located in the Central Business District with façade monies and rehab monies. Kevin stated the City has established a parking committee of which he is on for the new courthouse. Manny asked if this building, Leonard Block, was in the Historic District? Mayor Charles Crowley stated yes, it’s located within the Historical District District.
Atty. Treano stated this will give the City a tool to deal with the building. Studies have been conducted and it was determined the site has dramatically deteriorated and in unsafe. They had a structural engineer do inspection and if the wall fell it could affect New York Lace and City Hall. He stated in 1995 a Boston expert stated they had a 5 year window to renovate but that was not done and now the building has deteriorated. They raised 20,000 to feasibility marketing study and that indicated it would take over 5 million dollars to fix building. No one has worked harder than the TRA members for the plan. Manny stated that he read the literature that was presented by the TDA. Manny wanted to know who’s paying for building if taken down, hopefully not the
taxpayers? Mr. Swartz answers we are not going to take building down. This will make it eligible for eminent domain and give the City another tool. Mr. Swartz stated in order for the plan to change they need to have Planning Board endorsement, Council and then sent to agency in Boston, Ma. The first option is acquisition and second is eminent domain. Bob stated he understand they need to have in final plan. Kevin stated it’s simply to get this building into the plan and it will be another tool for the City should they need it. This is not the preferred plan but backup plan. Bob asked if they know to negotiate with? Atty. Treano stated according to court documents the owner is Save the Star Inc. Dick agrees it’s a safety issues and this will give the Council another tool.
Dick made motion to send a positive recommendation that it fits into the Master Plan. Seconded by Bob. Alan brought to the Board’s attention the wording of the vote.
Dick amended his motion to read: that the proposed urban renewal change IS in accordance with the City of Taunton Master Plan. Seconded by Bob. All in favor.
Dick made motion to revert back to the regular order of business, seconded by Bob. All in favor.
Cont’d. Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Map Amendment - To re-zone properties Currently located in the Office District and Urban Residential to Highway Business
District. The properties are as follows: 127 Hart St., 133 Hart St., 671 County St., 677 County St., 687 County St., 711 County St, 721 County St. Parcel I.D. 93-134, 729 County St., 745 County St., 763 County St., 777 County St, 784 County St., 772 County St., 742 County St., 734 County St., 716 County St., Parcel I.D. 93-149, Parcel I.D. 93-150, 137 Hart St., 702 County St., Parcel I.D. 93-153, 680 County St., Parcel I.D. 93-155, 670 County St., 139 Hart St., 141 Hart St, 143 Hart St., 147 Hart St., 149 Hart St, 760 County St., Parcel I.D. 93-161, Parcel I.D. 93-162, Parcel I.D. 93-262, Parcel I.D. 94-199, Parcel I.D. 94-200.
Chairman Dermody reminded everyone that public input is still open. Bob Gregory, Mass. Highway, District 5, 1000 County St., Taunton, Ma. Jim Hadfield, Transportation Manager, SRPEDD, 88 Broadway was invited into the enclosure. Mr. Hadfield stated that there was a study conducted in 2001 for County & Hart Street corridor and this intersection fell within the top 20 worst intersections of South Eastern Mass. At that time they made some recommendations relative to widening the County Street approaches to provide an exclusive left turn lane plus 2 through lanes along with new pavement markings along with a need for continuance maintenance of those markings, along with appropriate signs to provide motorists with sufficient information to navigate safety through the intersection. These
recommendations have not been implemented and continue to be needed. He stated there have been minimal crashes on Hart Street along Home Depot. There are more on Hart Street and the additional left lane will help that. He stated the numerous curb cuts add to the problem because they aren’t aligned very well. He stated it right in front of Mass. Highway, Hess gas and Dunkin Donuts. He stated the vehicles try to make left turn out of Bristol Plymouth. These problems could occur further north and we encourage the Planning Board be aware of curb cuts and aligning them up. He stated Hart Street need to be re-constructed to make safer and not have driveway too close to intersection. He has no opinion on what the development is but is concerned for the safety and safe access and put driveway as far away from intersection as possible. The sidewalks along County Street are bad and it’s very difficult for pedestrians walking. The utilities poles are in middle of sidewalk and not
ADA compliant. Bob asked if any changes were made? Mr. Hedfield stated the City has some preliminary design plans. Mr. Gregory, Mass Highway, stated the City has 25% design plans paid by the developer. Kevin stated the 25% design plans were actually paid by TDC. Mr. Gregory stated if things go well the project could be advertised possibly in December. Dick asked about putting jersey barriers to prevent accidents. The plans are to have highway to be divided with 4 lanes. He referred to SPREDD’s comments about curb cuts. He stated that the intersection is a problem with fender benders due to left turns and curb cuts too close to intersection. Chairman Dermody stated that anything done on County Street is under the Mass. Highway Jurisdiction? Mr. Gregory answers yes. Bob asked about letter sent to the City Engineer from SRPEDD relative to project. The letter stated the City will be
responsible for further development the city will be responsible for land takings. Bob asked about the gap from Taunton Depot Drive and intersection? Mr. Gregory answers the intersection is not the big problem, the problems are the increase in driveways. Mr. Hedfield stated that the land donations help in getting road properly done. City Engineer Mark Slusarz stated that is a 25% design plan that hasn’t been submitted to Mass. Highway yet. The TDC did the 25% plan and once the CVS litigation comes out of court they will have more money toward the completion costs. Mark stated the plan is a preliminary plan and could slight change but there will be land takings needed.
Mr. Hedfield & Mr. Gregory excused. Board took 10 minute break. Hearing re-convened at 6:41 PM.
Atty. Gay representing petitioner, Bruce Thomas, 48 Church Green, Taunton, Ma Atty. Gay stated it was good to hear from Mass. Highway and SRPEDD. Atty. Gay stated he has been involved with all the development along County Street and Hart Street. He stated his client has donated all land for land takings and Mass. Highway has approved all curb cuts. They have funding from other developments. Atty. Gay station under Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to the purpose of the district. He stated the reason you need a Special Permit is because it’s not the appropriate use. The Special Permit gives the City control over what goes where. Atty. Gay stated the Special Permit process provides abutters the right to appeal. He stated if this case wasn’t held up in appeal then the work would be done. He stated a Boston Law Firm is representing petitioner and a decisions should be coming soon. Atty. Gay stated if there were no Special Permit then there would be no appeal.
However; he thinks the abutters have a right to an appeal process. He cited Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance Highway Business District. The use should be reasonable and maximize green space and minimize traffic on the roads, enhance major roads, which Taunton only has 3 major roads, Rte. 138, Rt. 24, and Rt. 44. Atty. Gay stated under Section 15.2 the Site Plan Review process and under Section 15.6.1the City has the ability to mitigate for traffic impacts, etc. Atty. Gay isn’t sure if a Site Plan Review can be appealed? He stated CVS is obligated to pay $200,000 and the house across the street is obligated to pay $250,000 if commercial development goes there. The commercial use will bring in jobs and taxes to the City. Atty. Gay stated the city doesn’t want to be like Berkley which is struggling because no commercial & industrial uses. He states you need to be proactive and why would a business want go
though the Special Permit process if they might be appealed. Atty. Gay stated in 2001 SRPEDD did study and hopefully it will get done if CVS comes out of court. Atty. Gay stated that more than likely lots will be combined with less driveways, thus less curb cuts. No one is building large office buildings. Atty. Gay stated he agrees it’s impossible to take left out of Bristol Plymouth. He stated some developers don’t want to get involved if they have to go through the Special Permit process. The City needs to be proactive and zone the land the appropriate use. He stated they are not proposing to change all of Hart Street. Atty. Gay stated this is the entrance to the City from Route 140 and 24. Atty. Gay stated the Site Plan Review process requires all the landscaping but there are tools in place for the City to use. Bob stated zone land the appropriate use once the infrastructure is in place. He cannot
vote for something knowing the infrastructure isn’t in place. He stated that a SPR decision could get appealed and could get argues in court and get thrown out. Atty. Gay stated that some conditions can be imposed and none of his clients every appealed a decision because of the conditions. City Planner Kevin Scanlon stated the argument by Atty. Gay is misleading. He stated if CVS came out of court the improvements wouldn’t be done. He stated the primary use is Retail & Restaurant and that is allowed in the Office District by Special Permit. In most instances the use may not be all the time. He stated, in his opinion, the City has more control when a Special Permit is required. Certain uses are allowed by right and the City can’t say no, they can just put reasonable conditions. Kevin stated the City must be in the strongest position possible to mitigate. He stated you can get a lot further in the
Special Permit process. Kevin stated if the infrastructure was in place then the remaining office/Industrial land could be changed. Kevin stated there are a lot of residents, condo owners, abutters and the City needs to protect them. Atty. Gay stated theoretically you can impose conditions or require performance bond by perhaps the city doesn’t use the tool in place. Manny stated that he wants to see the infrastructure in place. Atty. Gay stated in a “perfect city” all the infrastructure would be in place. But unfortunately the City doesn’t have the money. Manny stated wants to bring business to the City but has a gut feeling about this. Kevin stated that there have been some zoning changes that were warranted. Like on Bay Street where there were less abutters who would be affected. Arthur agrees he has to consider the neighbors and abutters who would be most affected by this. Alan asked
if there any eminent domain land takings? Atty. Gay answers yes but the petitioner has donated his portion of land takings. Atty. Gay stated part of the Site Plan Review process the language in place for mitigation. Kevin stated that the zoning remain to protect the City. Atty. Gay stated there is no difference in what you can require whether it be by a special permit or thru departmental site plan review. Opposition: Dorothy Latour, 120 Hart St., she stated the neighbors have a voice as part of the Special Permit process. She stated the City needs to petition the State to widen the roadway. She asks the Board to keep it the way it is Atty. Gay stated that if MacDonald’s wanted to go in they would require special Permit because of the drive thru. He stated that a restaurant use requires a Special Permit in the Office District. You can get the same result from mitigation thru the
department site plan review process.
No one else appearing in favor or against petition.
Dick made motion to close public input, seconded by Alan.
Bob made motion to recommend the Municipal Council to NOT approve the proposed zoning map amendment. Seconded by Manny All in favor. Hearing closes at 7:19 PM.
Meeting adjourned at 7:19 PM
| 
