CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 10, 2008
Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Amaral, Enos, Berube, and
Joyce present at 7:40 PM.
Meeting called to order at 6:51PM
Wayne made motion to approve March 13, 2008 minutes, Seconded by Joe, All in favor.
Case # 2740 Pan – Hong Kong City 174 Broadway
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
A Special Permit from 5.3.4 of the Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the modification of a pre-existing non-conforming use from Nightclub and Function Hall to Restaurant with entertainment and function hall.
For the petitioner: Fei Pan, 65 Bridget Way, Attleboro, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Mr. Pan stated he is here because the Board asked for a one year review. Chairman Ackerman stated he is unaware of any complaints and states the restaurant is a great addition to the City. He stated the petitioner has proven himself to be a good neighbor. No opposition.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Ackerman, Amaral, Enos, Berube ………Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2909 Pro-Home Inc. Foss Ave & Kilmer Ave.
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
For a Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into two lots with one lot having 14,316.7 sq. ft. (instead of 15,000 sq. ft) with a 22 foot front yard setback (instead of 25 feet).
For the Petitioner: Atty. John Holgerson, Gay Gay & Field, P.C., P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Mary Ellen Rochette, ProHome, Inc., 45 School St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Letter from Taunton Housing Authority, 30 Olney St., Taunton, Ma.
Letter from City of Taunton Office of Economic & Community Dev., 45 School St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposed: None
Page 2 of 9 – ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
Atty. Holgerson stated they are proposing to divide the existing parcel into two lots. One lot will have 15,000 sq. ft. and the other lot is slightly under. He stated they are aware of the City Planner’s letter recommending re-configuration of the lot and facing the house a certain way. He stated the narrow shape of the lot contributes to the hardship of the lot. The lots will meet the size of the lots in the neighborhood even though they need variances. Atty. Holgerson stated the submitted plans have the lots split with the least amount of variances needed. He stated Pro-Home has done work in the neighborhood before and has appeared the Board before. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Conservation Commission, Fire Dept, MOEDC, T.H.A were read into the record. Atty. Holgerson
stated he didn’t have a problem with complying with the City Planner’s first two conditions. He would ask if they could face the front door from Foss Ave. to Kilmer Ave instead of moving driveway? He stated these houses will be pre-fab so they cannot wrap deck around as the City Planner recommends. They cannot move that. They will look into tying the water from Kilmer Avenue. No opposition.
Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following conditions:
1. Both driveways and front doors to face Kilmer Avenue.
2. Re-configure lot 1 to have 15,000 square feet and increase Lot 2 accordingly.
3. Each house must be serviced by Municipal Water, tied in from Kilmer Avenue.
Vote: Ackerman, Enos, Berube, Amaral .………….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2910 Tolliver 241 So. Walker St.
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
For a Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 6’ x 45’ addition having a front yard setback of 16 feet (instead of 40 feet)
For the Petitioner: Shawn Tolliver & Kerry Sylvia, 241 So. Walker St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Mr. Tolliver stated they are proposing to construct an addition to the existing house. The house currently only has an attic and they plan on adding a second floor. They will be no closer to the property lines than the existing house is now. Letters from the Fire Dept., City Planner, B.O.H., and Water dept. were read into the record. No opposition.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Vote: Ackerman, Enos, Berube, Amaral .………….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2911 Compurex Systems Corp. O’Connell Way, Lot 11
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
For a Variance from Section 7.3.1 to allow more than 25% of the required parking in front of the building located within an Industrial District.
Page 3 of 9 – ZBA Minutes 4-10-08
For the Petitioner: Rich Ricchio, Field Engineering Co. Inc., 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma
Bob Field, Field Engineering, Co. Inc., 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Letter from Taunton Development Corp., 12 Taunton Green, Ste. 201, Taunton, Ma.
Opposed: None
Mr. Ricchio stated they are here tonight for a variance to allow parking in front of building. The petitioners are looking to re-locate their business to Taunton. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac on O’Connell Way, Lot 11. Rich stated there is a lot of wetlands on the property which prevents using the whole site. Rich stated there will be no detriment to the neighboring abutters because there’s a detention basin. Wayne asked how do they egress? Rich answers they will use the second means of egress. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Water Dept., Fire Dept. and T.D.C were read into the record. No opposition.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Vote: Ackerman, Enos, Berube, Amaral .………….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2907 Teixeira 1182 Bay St.
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
For a Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into three lots. Lot 1B having 25 feet of frontage (instead of 100’ and 26 feet of lot width (instead of 100’).
For the Petitioner: John DeLano, DeLano & Associates, Inc., 27 Jefferson St., Taunton, Ma.
Adelino & Joseph Teixeira, 1182 Bay St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Mr. DeLano representing petitioner, stated the father wishes to divide property and give to son Joseph. He has owned this property for over 50 years and has conveyed a piece to his daughter and other son. The property is located in the Urban Residential District and has quite a bit of wetlands located on it. This is not a conventional subdivision. This lot will have 25 feet of access and then expand to 26 feet wide. The Conservation Commission has approved the Notice of Intent. Each lot will have their own driveway. They will keep existing house on smaller house and create new lot for son Joe. The only traffic that will be generated is the owners of the house. There will be no impact on abutters. Mr. DeLano stated the size and shape as well as the wetlands on the property create hardship. Chairman Ackerman asked about the “yellow” piece on plan? Mr. DeLano answers that piece will be conveyed to John on Lot 2. It was noted John’s house is under construction, it’s their
dream house which is very large. Joe asked if everyone will have their own driveway? Mr. DeLano answers yes. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Fire De[t., and Conservation Commission were read into the record. No opposition.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Vote: Ackerman, Enos, Berube, Amaral .………….Yes
Petition Granted:
Page 4 of 9 – ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
Case #2908 Lozinski Field Street
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
For a Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the development of 2 lots having 0 feet of frontage (instead of 125 feet) but having access via a common driveway.
For the Petitioner: Robert Taylor, c/o P.O. Box 251, No. Easton, Ma.
Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Ave., South, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: James Lavender, 128 Field St., Taunton, Ma.
Fred Clark, representing Ellen Clark- Lavender, 128
Field St., Taunton, Ma.
Tom Houghton, 136 Field St., Taunton, Ma.
Ron & Patricia Bornemann, 140 Field St., Taunton, Ma.
Virginia & Bernard McDermott, 104 Field St., Taunton, Ma.
Mr. Taylor states he works with Mr. Lozinski and he apologizes that his attorney is unable to come tonight. Mr. Taylor states after meeting with the City Planner & Conservation Agent he has filed a variance for no frontage. The properties have frontage but it’s wetland and the City doesn’t recognize it. The City Planner & Conservation Agent would rather see this proposal than go thru wetlands. They are proposing a common driveway but that is now under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. Gill wanted to know whose responsible for the maintenance of the common driveway? Mr. Taylor stated they were proposing this because this is what the City Planner suggested and he stated he would have to go the Planning Board for public hearing on common driveway. Mr. Taylor stated the
property is the back will never be developed and he has even been in contact with Mass. Wildlife Fisheries & Wildlife on donating land. They may be interested in the remaining land for preservation purposes. Mr. Taylor stated that out of the 50 acres there is only a small portion of developable land. Mr. Taylor stated the remaining land would be a great resource area. Joe asked if the frontage is wet? Paul Patneaude, P.E. answers yes so the City considers it “illusionary”. Joe asked if denied they would have to go to Conservation for approval? Mr. Taylor answers yes but they would prefer to not cross wetlands. It was note the 3rd lot requires Special Permit for common driveway, 2 houses are allowed by right. Mr. Taylor stated the property consists of 50 acres which could possibly be 5-6 lots but they don’t want to do that. They would rather just develop this land and possibly donate
the remaining land to a non-profit agency.
Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept., Water Dept., and Conservation Commission were read into the record. Opposition: Fred Clark, representing his daughter & husband, Ellen & James Lavender, 128 Field St.. They submitted a letter which Mr. Clark read into the record. The letter indicated the hardship is self imposed and they should go to Conservation Commission to cross wetlands. He stated the common driveway needs to go to the Planning Board which was recently change from the ZBA jurisdiction. Mr. Taylor stated he used to be the Chairman of the Planning Board in Easton, Ma and a Selectman. Wayne stated the only issue here tonight is frontage. Opposed: Patricia Borden, 140 Field St., stated she has lived on Field Street for 33 years and she wants everything in writing about
donating land? She stated the property across
Page 5 of 9 – ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
the street and they crossed the wetlands and didn’t what they were suppose to and they only got a slap on the wrist. Chairman Ackerman stated they are presenting it to us that they are going to donate to wildlife. Mr. Borden stated that prior to Mrs. Lozinski passing away, their father was big into birds and would love that property to remain as is. She stated they are trying to circumvent conservation by coming to ZBA. Wayne asked if her major concern was the development of the area in back? She stated yes she is ok with 2 lots but doesn’t want any more development in back. She stated their hardship is money. Opposed Bernard McDermott, 104 Field St., stated he abuts property to the west and states the property is wet. He stated the sewer trench/runoff from street goes into
the Snake River. He stated they will find some access to the large lot in back. Opposed: James Lavender, 128 Field St., Virginia McDermott, 104 Field St., Ron & Patricia Borneman, 140 Field Street. Mr. Taylor responds to the opposition. He stated he tried to contact abutters and states he is 100% diligently working with non-profit group for donation of land. He has numerous 3-mails from the Trustees of the Wildland Trust of Duxbury and Audoborn Society. He stated there are some small dry parts on the land but not enough to develop. Wayne stated the 30 foot strip would no be big enough for frontage. It was answered no. Mr. Taylor stated there has to be some kind of frontage . Wayne asked if the remaining land would be left in its “virgin” state? Chairman Ackerman suggests giving the 30 foot strip to lot and having an easement right of way to remaining land in back. He would be in favor of that. He
stated the City Solicitor would review easement and approve it. It would state No development, just to pass & re-pass to carry out the grant of the preservation and it should remain this way forever. Wayne suggested they should re-configure lot line and carry out the possible donation to charitable organization. Mr. Taylor stated that all wetlands have been approved and the ZBA approves then he can go to P.B. for approval. Mr. Clark wanted to speak again but the Chairman informed in of the process of public format.
Motion made and seconded with the following conditions:
1. Eliminate the 30 foot wide strip of land and combine it with Lot 2G
2. Easement for access for Lot 2J (remaining land 31.03 acres) thru Lot 2G for Preservation purposes only. Easement to be submitted to the Law Dept. for approval.
3. Emergency turnaround to be approved by the Fire Dept. for Lot 2E, Lot 2H and Lot2G.
Vote: Ackerman, Enos, Berube, Wasylow, Amaral .………….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2905 Cedarwood Dev. Inc. 438 Broadway
Hearing held on March 13, 2008 & April 10, 2008
A Variance from Section 6.3, 7.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 6,124 sq. ft. retail building with a waiver of the landscaping buffer from 15 feet to 3 feet and a rear setback of 20.5’ instead of 30 feet.
For the Petitioner: Josh Sperling, P.E., Bohler Engineering.
John Damrath, Cedarwood Development Inc.,
John Kucich, P.E. Bohler Engineering.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Page 6 of 9 – ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
Mr. Sperling stated the property currently has house, garage and shed located on it. They propose to erect the buildings and construct a 6,124 sq. ft. building to be used for retail, Advanced Auto Store. There will be a lot of improvements to site. They are asking for a waiver of the rear yard setback and the landscaped buffer due to the wetlands on the property. They are trying to stay away from the wetlands per the Conservation Commission. John asked where on Rte. 138 is this site? Mr. Sperling explains it next to the Taunton/Raynham line, next to W.H. Riley Oil Company. Peter asked if they would be pulling in and the backing up to loading dock in front of building? The front entrance is actually on the side? Dennis stated he would not vote for loading dock facing Broadway.
The overhead doors, 23 x 15 is really a concrete pad. There will be one man door and one overhead door. Mr. Sperling stated the deliveries are made off peak hours. He understands their concerns but due to the wetlands they are restricted. He stated the trucks will NOT go thru the landscaped buffer. He has tried several different ways of placing building. Peter stated that an accident will happen with how they are proposing. Joe stated that Rte. 138 is very busy. It was suggested moving the building towards Raynham? It was the concensus of the Board to have the building moved? Peter stated the lot is too small for the size of the building. Mr. Sperling stated he could possibly remove a few parking spaces. Peter’s main concern is backing up when there are cars there. Joe suggested eliminating some parking and make an exit only. Chairman Ackerman
stated they can’t come out and go towards Taunton because of the heavy traffic. He didn’t want any backing up and running along loading dock. Mr. Sperling asked the Board if he can demonstrate there is safe access will it be acceptable? John stated it’s not the engineer’s fault if someone back up and doesn’t see the cars? It was suggesting reducing the size of the building? Mr. Sperling stated they have already reduced the size of the building. Wayne asked if they could submit information on when the deliveries are made and the frequency of them? Chairman Ackerman stated this business will bring jobs to the city but doesn’t want it to be a safety hazard. Mr. Sperling asked if the Board could vote contingent upon address their concerns at the DIRB process? Chairman Ackerman stated he would like to see that information prior to voting, but he’s just one vote. It was suggested
continuing until next month to get information. Also to check with the office to see if additional advertising will be needed if proposal changes? Mr. Sperling waives the time frame on which to act on this proposal. APRIL 10, 2008 – John Kucich, Bohler Engineering & John Damrath, Cedarwood Development Inc., passed out new plans. They looked at moving the loading dock to the rear of the property, and have loading on the left based on the wetland line, however; this alternative would not allow full circulation of the wetland line. Then they considered moving everything to the right but that wasn’t going to work either. They looked at another option, having parking to the left and loading on right side but it was too narrow of a width for circulation and the truck would have to back up. The property is wider down near the street then narrows and they have, in their opinion, exhausted
all options. The second modification is to make driveway wider under Mass. Highway. They used the truck template and the trucks can enter site and pull into the loading dock. It was asked how many deliveries they get? It was answered 1 delivery per week which lasts about 45 to 1 hour long. It was noted it’s the policy to not have someone there when the store is not open. The delivery would be done at 7:30 AM. The Board’s main concern is to not have anyone there when delivery is made. Chairman Ackerman asked if they could have the delivery earlier? He stated the majority of the school buses are out around 7:30 AM and this is a very busy street. John asked how would the deliveries be enforced. Mr. Damrath answers they would monitor it. It was suggested having delivery earlier or late. The major problem is the site is small. Wayne stated that Mr. Wasylow, from last meeting, was
concerned with right turn only. They can widen the entrance way to get off roadway. There is a concrete blocks with 5 parking spaces in front with striped area. John stated, in his opinion, the building was in good location. Mr. Damrath stated the store is “a standard store” in the way it’s set up. John does agree and thinks they could change if it they had to. John only wants to ensure safe access and egress. Wayne suggesting having the delivery 7:00 AM when store is closed. John
Page 7 of 9 - ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
stated he’s in favor of project but just wants to make sure it’s safe with the loading dock out back. John suggesting creating 90degree angle for safe access. Mr. Damrath stat that would require another curb cut from Mass. Highway and they don’t usually don’t give more that one. Mr. Damrath stated the other option would be to angle the building and gain 15% and we may lose one parking space. It was noted they do have more than what’s required. It was noted the door on the loading dock is a sliding door so there will be no backing out onto road. It will be noted “right turn only”. And they will need Mass. Highway Department approval. The Board was hoping that Mass. Highway would want safe access from site. They can leave the
exiting driveway as is and make other one “right turn only”. It was asked hours of operation and the response was 7:30 AM – 9:00 PM. Chairman Ackerman stated they really don’t need to limit the hours of operation.
Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following conditions:
1. The building to be slightly moved as presented at meeting.
2. The second access limited to right turn exit only subject to Mass. Highway approval. Sign must be posted stating “Right Turn Exit Only”.
3. There shall be a minimum of 25 parking spaces.
Vote: Ackerman, Joyce, Berube, Amaral .………….Yes
Petition Granted:
John made motion to forward a letter to Mass. Highway Dept. in support of 2nd curb cut to ensure safe access & egress and to act on this proposal within a timely fashion. Seconded by Joe, All in favor.
John made motion to go into Executive Session, seconded by Gill. (SEESEPARATE MINUTES)
Roll call: Joyce, Berube, Enos, Amarla, Ackerman…….Yes
No votes taken into Executive Session.
Case #2468C – Modification Pineridge Condos Hart St.
Hearing held on April 10, 2008
Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Wayne Berube, Gill Enos, Joseph Amaral and Joyce Joyce. Also present were Asst. City Solicitor.
For the petitioner: Atty. John Bentley,Jr., 32 Cornell St., New Bedford, Ma.
Shawn Telsi, 263 Wood Cliff Rd., Newton, Ma.
Mark Tisdelle, P.E. Haywward Boynton & Williams, 60 Court St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Chairman Ackerman stated to officially open the public hearing. The Board has been dealing with this project and Chairman Ackerman personally gave Mr. Telsi the certified letter that was sent to him but never picked up. Mr. Telsi said the Secretary for the Board gave him a copy of the letter. The Secretary stated she did not give him a copy of this communication, it was something else. Chairman Ackerman read the letter which was dated March 14, 2008 and in that letter it
Page 8 of 9 – ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
requested an answer as to what the Mr. Telsi’s intentions are and respond to the ZBA within 2 weeks receipt of this letter.
Chairman Ackerman stated prior to a full presentation of new proposal, he asked the applicant to file for a transfer of the Comprehensive Permit from previous name to his by the next meeting which will not hold up this public hearing. Also since the Board approved this project, prior to it’s approval;, during the 2 year period, the Board had several consultants reviewing proposal, these included Abend Associates, Edwards & Kelcey, Attorney Mark Bobrowski to name a few. Chairman Ackerman, at this time would entertain a motion to increase the escrow account to pay for consultants to review new plans.
Wayne made motion to increase the escrow to a $12,000 balance for review of plans, and whenever it dips below $7,000 it must be replenished to a $12,000 balance, seconded by John.
Roll Call Vote: Joyce, Berube, Enos, Amaral, Ackerman…………Yes.
Chairman Ackerman stated that after the presentation he would the abutters the opportunity to speak and asked for their patience.
Atty. Bentley stated he will respond to the certified letter sent by the board and contact Atty. Wm. Rosa regarding the change of name. However; he’s not sure the transfer of the permit is under the jurisdiction of the ZBA. Chairman Ackerman stated that this is a MAJOR change and he wanted to make that transfer a part of hearing. Chairman Ackerman stated he asked the Law Dept. if this was a legitimate question and it was.
Atty. Bentley stated they appealed the denial by this Board and now it’s now at the State level and he has been working with the Law Dept. in discussion an agreement and that’s why we are here tonight. John asked Atty. Bentley what question needs clarification? Atty. Bentley stated the appeal was denied and now it’s in the Housing Appeals Court and he states that now take jurisdiction. He stated he was asked by the Appeals Committee to come back with a modification plan. John stated that is not in appeal. Atty. Bentley stated the approval of the transfer of the permit has to come from them. Chairman Ackerman feels this is under the jurisdiction of the ZBA and can be addressed at this level. Atty. Bentley stated he asked Attorney Rosa, former owner’s attorney, to transfer the permit? Jane Estey, Asst. City Solicitor stated the new regulations may control this hearing and the transfer of the permit. Atty. Bentley agrees they are operating under the new rules. At this time
Atty. Bentley stated this is not a modification but a settlement hearing? He stated his client was offering a compromise. There was some controversy in regards to if this was a public hearing or not. Atty. Bentley stated his client nor he asked for a public hearing. It was noted Mr. Telsi submitted request and information to set a public hearing. Chairman Ackerman states this certainly is a public hearing for a modification of a comprehensive permit. Joe stated they are basically re-opening the public hearing for the new proposal reducing the units from 72 to 56 which might be acceptable. Chairman Ackerman re-iterated and said it’s a public hearing. Atty. Jane Estey, Asst. City Solicitor stated the Board cannot take any action without having a public hearing. Atty. Bentley stated he is not prepared to go through a whole new set of public hearings. John stated, in his opinion, but you want the Board to approve the change in
the number of units but don’t review anything else? At this time Chairman Ackerman stated he’s getting a little offended at the response he’s getting. He came here tonight to negotiate and listen to new proposal with an open mind. He states he feels he’s under attack. He suggests continuing this until next month to get things resolved and wants fair treatment and doesn’t want this petition withdrawn. Wayne stated this is a public hearing which has been opened and there will be public input.
Page 9 of 9 – ZBA Minutes – 4-10-08
Wayne made motion to continue until next month, seconded by Gill.
Roll Call Vote: Ackerman, Amaral, Joyce, Berube, Enos……Yes
Ackerman, Berube, Amaral, Enos, Joyce, ......……… YES
Petition Continued.
John made motion to go into Executive Session, Seconded by Gill.
Vote: Joyce, Amaral, Berube, Enos, Ackerman…….Yes
Executive Session – SEE SEPARATE MINUTES
No votes taken in Executive Session.
Motion to adjourn meeting at 10:26 PM.
| 
