CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 11, 2010
Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Peter Wasylow, Wayne Berube, Joseph Amaral, John Joyce and Michael Staples.
Meeting opens at 6:46 PM.
Peter made motion to accept minutes of February 11, 2010 seconded by Joe. All in favor.
Chairman Ackerman explained the process of which the ZBA conducts its meetings. They listen to the petitioner/Attorney, then opposition or in favor and then back to the petitioner. They do not go back and forth.
Case # 3009 Cabral 390 Washington St.
A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the re-construction of a pre-existing non-conforming building for residence use as a 6-unit apartment building without having the required lot area, dry area and units per acre.
Requesting a continuance until May meeting due to an error in the legal advertising. Also extension of the time frame on which to act on his proposal to the end of May.
Motion made and seconded to grant request for continuance until May meeting and extend the time frame.
Vote: Wasylow, Amaral, Berube, Ackerman, Medeiros…
Case #3003 Cabral Hoover St.
Hearing held on March 11, 2010
A Variance from Section 7.8 & 7.8.3 to allow the dwelling conversion of a 2-family to a 3-family having 8,149 sq. ft. Instead of 15,000 sq. ft.)
For the Petitioner: Atty. William Rounds, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: Letter from Edward Laffan, 10 Hoover St., Taunton, Ma.
Letter from Arnold Morse, 810 Cohannet St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: None
Atty. Rounds states the neighborhood consists of smaller lots, 50 x 100 and this particular lot is comprised of 2 lots totaling 0,000 square feet. The lot is undeveloped and has a basketball court o nit. The petitioner owns the property next door and wishes to have his son build a single family dwelling on new lot. Atty. Rounds stated there will be no need for setback variance. The lots will be serviced by municipal sewer. Mr. Cabral brought sewer and made it possible for neighbors to tie into sewer. However; there is a 5 year moratorium to tie into water and they will as soon as they are able. Atty. Rounds stated petitioner agrees to a temporary connection until such time as they can connect. He stated they will grant easement for this. Atty. Rounds states this parcel is located in two districts, Urban & Suburban but the Urban District governs. Atty. Round stated they cannot develop without variance which creates hardship to petitioner. Atty. Rounds submits letter from
abutter in favor.
Chairman Ackerman informed Atty. Round of the new policy the Board can make dept. letters conditions if they feel it’s appropriate. Letters from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Fire Dept. B.O.H. and Water Dept. were read into the record. Atty. Rounds didn’t have any problems with dept. comments.
Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following conditions:
1. The temporary connection into 792 Cohannet Street will be allowed until the 5 year moratorium is up as long as both parcels are owned by the same entity for this time period.
2. Petitioner will connect Lots 8 & 9 water line to Hoover Street as soon as the 5 year moratorium is over.
3. Hardwired interconnected smoke detectors located throughout the proposed dwelling, 780 CMR9.0. Carbon monoxide detectors are required to meet M.G.L. 148 Sec. 26 F1/2 and 527 CMR 31. A Permit for a fire warning must be obtained before a building permit is by the Fire Dept.
4. Lots will be service by Municipal Sewer.
5. The dwellings must comply with the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, State Sanitary Code, Chapter II.
VOTE: Medeiros, Amaral, Ackerman, Wasylow,Berube. …....……...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #3010 Plain Street Realty Trust 17 Sydney’s Way
Hearing held on March 11, 2010
A Variance from Section 6.3 to allow the existing foundation having a front yard setback of 19.6 feet instead of 25 feet.
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Elliott Snyder, Develop of Sydney’s Way Subdivision
Jodi Jennessee, Middleboro, Ma.
Rich Ricchio, Field Engineering Co. 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: None
Opposition: Robson & Leonardo Rodrigues, 219 Plain St., Taunton, Ma. had some questions
Atty. Gay stated that this request is for a front yard setback that was discovered by Field Engineering when completing As-Built plans. The property is located on the corner of Plain Street and the newly constructed street, Sydney’s Way. The property is located in the Suburban Residential District and a 24 foot rear setback and 94 side setback on one side. The problem is when the garage was constructed it was off set a couple of feet from the house resulting in it being 19.6 feet instead of 25 feet. Atty. Gay stated the actual distance from the pavement is about 32 feet because the pavement width of this street is 24 feet wide. Atty. Gay stated the house is placed where it is due to wetlands and placement of the septic system. Troy asked who caught this mistake?
Atty. Gay stated that Rich Ricchi, Field Engineering discovered the error. Atty. Gay stated you wouldn’t’ know just by looking because the lot is dug up and there is no landscaping yet. Peter asked if the garage is up? Mr. Snyder answers yes. Opposition: Rob & Leo Rodrigues, 219 Plain St. had question as to how close it’s to their property right next door? John stated as a results of this it’s further way from his house. They didn’t have any other issues... Letters from the City Plannner, Water Dept., B.O.H and Conservation Commission were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented.
VOTE: Amaral, Ackerman, Wasylow, Berube, Medeiros…....……...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #3011 11 Knight Street Realty Trust 11 Knight St.
Hearing held on March 11, 2010
A Variance from Section 7.8 & 7.8.3 to allow the dwelling conversion of a 2-family to a 3-family having 8,149 sq. ft. Instead of 15,000 sq. ft.)
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Robert Soares, Jr., 195 Thrasher St., Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: None
Opposition: None
Atty. Gay states the petitioner is requesting a Variance from Section 7.8 & 7.8.3 for a dwelling conversion of a 2-family to a 3-family. Under the Zoning Ordinance you are able to convert by right in an URD providing you have 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Atty. Gay stated there will be no changes with the exception of a new roof and dormers. The third unit will be on the 3rd floor and there is ample parking. The exiting parking layout requires a approval of the existing parking space being in front of the existing driveway. Atty. Gay stated the house was constructed in the 1920’s according to the Assessor’s records. He stated the neighborhood consists of multifamily dwellings and this will remain compatible with the surrounding properties. Chairman Ackerman read letters from
the Water dept. in regards to the water service. Robert Soares, Jr. 195 Thrasher St. stated the water service was changed about 12 years ago. Chairman Ackerman suggested they contact the Water Dept. Letters from the B.O.H., City Planner, and Conservation Commission were read into the record. Discussion took place in regard to the Water Dept. comments and if it should be included as a condition. John stated that several months ago the Board discussed dept. comments and how they should be considered. Peter stated that the applicant states the water service has been upgraded. Wayne stated that Mr. Soares testified that it has been done and he has every reason to believe him. No one in favor or against petition.
Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented.
VOTE: Medeiros, Amaral, Ackerman, Wasylow,Berube. …....……...Yes
Petition Granted:
Minutes to Case #2468C – Modification Pineridge Condos Hart St.
Hearing held on March 11, 2010
Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Wayne Berube, Joseph Amaral Peter Wasylow, Troy Medeiros, John Joyce, and Michael Staples. Also present was Atty. Marguerite Mitchell.
For the petitioner: Atty. Christopher Agostino,
In favor: None
Opposed: Phillip Neveu, 51 Briarwood Drive, Taunton, Ma.
James Divencenzo, 108 Briarwood Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Andrew Marshall, 185 Hart St. Taunton, Ma.
Bob Wilbur, 71 Briarwood Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Chairman Ackerman gave history of this case. This was originally approved in 2004 and in 2007 the present owner purchased the site. Soon thereafter he came before the Board for several changes and was denied. He appealed the decision with HAC and for the past 3 years there have been several meetings to come to a settlement. About a month ago on the court steps there was a settlement offer and the Board scheduled a public hearing on that offer. Atty. Christopher Agostino representing Non-Stop LLC was here tonight to give presentation on that settlement proposal. Chairman Ackerman stated he along with John Joyce and the two attorneys have worked on trying to reach an agreement. Chairman Ackerman stated that he worked on it trying to resolve the Board’s concerns. The Board’s biggest 2 issues
were no increase in traffic and the Age Restriction. Chairman Ackerman stated that the elimination of the age restriction is a financial issue and he was informed that that the HAC would not uphold an Age Restricted development. So he stated they have come up with a plan that met both the Board’s and Developer’s concerns. Chairman Ackerman stated that their expert stated that 49 units without age restriction would be equal to the increase in traffic caused by the 72 restricted units. Atty. Agostino stated that it’s not financial feasible to construct 48 units so there has to be other accommodations that were agreed to. The design of the site is to accommodate children with a recreation area and more open space. The original plan called for 72 units with a small club house and gazebo. The plans presented to HAC showed 72 units with an increase in recreation area and more green space, club house. Atty. Agostino stated that
the HAC looks and sees if the traffic & safety changes outweighed the certain accommodations. The new plan shows a reduction of units to 48 and recreation area on site for the children. Atty. Agostino stated that the Board recommended a club house and they have added additional parking. The have eliminated 2 units next to the Lavoie property. They have added fencing around the detention ponds, fencing along the abutting property and wetlands. The major changes are the reduction of units from 72 to 48, recreation area, fencing around detention basins and wetland and buildings reconfigured. Atty. Agostino stated that also changed was the financial condition relative to the impact fees. The original impact fee was $1,625.00 per unit to be set aside for traffic improvements to the intersection. Now the new proposal is for $1,200 per unit and the time of those fees. The original was payable due prior to a building permit
being issue. The change is now due at the time of Cert. of Occupancy is issued. Another minor change was the sewer on Briarwood Drive. They wish to change when the sewer needs to go in. The original permit states it needs to be in at a certain umber of unit and if the total number of units change that needs to be clarified. Atty. Agostino stated the proposed language would include if the sewer wasn’t in prior to the 13th building permit (or 25%) then a performance bond would be required in the amount included by the City Engineer, as stated on the Performance Guarantee Agreement passed out this evening. Atty. Agostino stated the Board has always maintained that the neighbors will be getting sewer from this project. So if the sewer is not installed by the 12th building permit then a performance bond will be required to cover sewer installation. So in essence the sewer could be in by the 132
building permit or no later than the 19th building permit. Atty. Agostino stated that the 2 residential properties abutting this property will be fenced to prevent children from trespassing. The Board also negotiated that there will be no more than 2 Bedrooms and that will be in the condo documents. Atty. Agostino stated that any and all documents will stated the number of units plus the number of bedrooms in units. Joe asked about the sewer easement in regards to Briarwood Drive. More specifically the property of Rego (78 Briarwood Dr.) and Machado (88 Briarwood Dr.) and asked if the stubs could be put in the rear of the property. Atty. Agostino didn’t have any issues with that and agreed. Philip Neveu, 51 Briarwood Drive, stated no one cares about the seniors. He was concerned with the sewerage but his question was answered. John wanted everyone to know that they were told the “age restriction” would not have been
upheld with the HAC. John stated they are aware of the burden on the school system and that’s is why they crafted it the way they did by restricted to 2 bedrooms which would limit the amount children. Mr. Neveu stated if the age restriction was going to be exhausted then he guesses this would be the best way to go. Chairman Ackerman stated they made sure the sewer would be there for the neighbors. Mr. Neveu asked if they would be tearing the roadway up when they put sewer in? Atty. Agostino stated the sewer extension permit plan shows the service out to property line. Troy asked if the abutters would be forced to tie into sewer? Atty. Mitchell answers no but they would have to pass title IV. Troy asked about the sewer fees? It was noted there are many fees that abutters are unaware of. It was stated there is a fee of $500.00 for an existing single family dwelling, and then there is a new fee of $2,500 for
any new house (infrastructure). It was stated you have to pay tie in fees, pay contractor and B.O.H. Atty. Agostino stated he wasn’t sure of the elevation and if there was a low point. It was noted by abutters in audience that the low point in down Briarwood Drive. It was asked if the people tying into seer would need gravity pumps which would be another expense. It was noted there will be gravity from Rego’s property to end of c ul-de-sac. Opposed: Jim Divencenzo,108 Briarwood Drive stated he wants fencing around the pond on the property. He states if they are proposing fencing around detention pond they should fence the pond. He stated there are children in the neighborhood from the surrounding apartment complexes and want to ensure their safety. He stated the property is always wet. Atty. Agostino stated the limit of financial feasibility for his client doesn’t allow for fencing around pond. He stated there was a significant debate on finances and they are
unable to fence the “pond”. Atty. Agostino stated on the original plan it wasn’t going to be fenced. Chairman Ackerman asks what kind of fencing would he like? Mr. Divencenzo didn’t specify what type just wanted fence for safety of the neighborhood children. John pointed out that the detention basin was fenced because of them sloping it which could be a liability as opposed to a man made pond. He understood his concern but fencing of ponds is a little to the extreme. Peter explained that many people worked on these plans to appease both sides. The Board has to either accept or don’t accept plans. He, meaning the owner of the land, is liable for the pond, the neighbor is not. Chairman Ackerman stated to the neighbors that they always told the abutters they would have public hearing to give them a chance for public input. Chairman Ackerman stated the Board always
wanted to hear the neighbor’s concerns. He did point out when completed the condo assoc. will take over and be responsible for “pond”. Opposed: Andy Marshall, 185 Hart St., stated his name is all over his documents that were passed out tonight. He displayed the fact that the “proposed post & rail” fence would not stop anyone… In his opinion it’s not a fence. He stated on the original plan it had a 50 feet buffer and it’s not on this plan. Atty. Mitchell stated this plans only shows the changes, if it’s not on here then its still remains in effect. There will be a final set of updated plans that the Board will sign later. Mr. Marshall stated doesn’t want to get hackled about starting his trucks in the morning for snow storm? He stated in the original decision it was going to be stated that his construction/truck business is there and it will be noted in all
documents. Atty. Mitchell stated that still remains in effect. He was concerned with kids coming onto his property. He has tried his best to keep them off. He stated that the owner claims he was unaware of what he purchased. You would think if you are going to spend that kind of money you would know what you are buying. Joe asked about the fencing? Atty. Agostino stated the post & rail fencing was negotiated and he’s at his limit. Joe suggested putting fencing in buffer and perhaps difference fence? Mr. Marshall was told there would be fence but a post & rail isn’t going to keep anyone out. It was noted that he knew if would not keep them out if they are determined to get in but it can retain them? John asked how much of a financial burden is it to have different kind of fencing? Atty. Agostino stated it ranges from $6.00 - $12.00 per foot. He re-iterated that the HAC looks at if
anything makes the project less desirable. Atty. Agostino stated maybe they could move fence near unit 46. Mr. Marshall stated they put fencing to accommodate them,, to make to more marketable. They are not concerned with keeping anyone out. Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant can sell any land? He stated that Mr. Telsi approached him a while back offering to sell backland? Mr. Marshall was concerned if someone bought back land could they put in more units? It was note this project is based on 22 acres and he cannot sell any land and he cannot get any more units. If he sell the project then he would have to inform the Board of ownership change. Wayne asked about previous memo in regard to the fencing? Wayne stated conditions #8 states 6 foot high fencing at the end of wall? It also shows fencing along buffer and near unit 46 and around detention basin 2. Atty. Mitchell stated the plans showed 6 foot
high fence and it was negotiated post & rail. John suggested moving fencing to other side of buffer and have a chain link fence. More fence away along the Marshall property. Atty. Agostino stated the applicant is at his limit of financial concessions. He stated no fence will keep the children out but they did their best to provide some sort of physical barrier to deter trespassing. He reminded the Board the original plan didn’t have fence. Chairman Ackerman suggested Attorney Agostino & Attorney Mitchell take a break and discuss the fencing. He stated based on the Boards concerns he feels that the plan could be denied. Atty. Agostino stated he doesn’t need a break to discuss it, if allowed he will move fence and place another type of fencing. He understands the Board and abutters concerns with the post & rail fence. He is ok with placing cost sensitive fencing in the buffer zone. Atty.
Agostino stated he is aware of the Board’s standards relative to the fencing. Opposed: Bob Wilbur, 71 Briarwood Dr., stated he has lived there for over 40 years and he is concerned with the children in the area. He has seen 8-9 feet of water through the woods in the holding tank. He stated he went to Police Station and was told they would come out and they never did so Jim shut the tank because he was worried about childrens’ safety. Mr. Wilbur congratulated Mr. Ackerman for supporting the neighbors at the Council meeting for the re-zoning of Hart’s 4 Corner & County St. John asked why the units closest to the roadway were not re-located? Atty. Agostino spoke to his client and was informed the infrastructure (sewer, gas) has been already installed and it would be financial hardship to not use it. John pointed out that the applicant has made it more marketable to have 2 units but didn’t eliminate the ones we asked him
to. John was under the impression that they wanted to preserve as many as 2 units as possible. John thought if we eliminated that building then we would create more green space at entrance. Attorney Agostino was unaware of the infrastructure was in when he last spoke with the Board about considering moving the units in front. Chairman Ackerman asked the Secretary about the infrastructure and was informed by a city official that it appears to be true. Chairman Ackerman stated that in 2004 when this was approved with families they would have never approved that number. The State leans towards the developer and shame on the process. They have negotiated on behalf of the neighbors as well as the City. Atty. Agostino stated the letter he presented to the Board dated Feb. 24, 2010 are the proposed modifications. He stated they could re-visit the possibility of the 49th unit upon application to
the Board. John suggested moving the club house up front, using the existing infrastructure and putting those units in back. Atty. Agostino and some Board members thought it was good to keep club house with recreation area away from the street. Mr. Marshall asked about condition #8 in regards to decrease. Atty. Mitchell stated the documents passed out this evening outlines the changes the HAC would have voting on. Mr. Marshall wanted reassurance they cannot add any more units with the exception of 49th unit. John wanted to inform everyone that there is a referendum question being proposed for Election relative to 40B and if any project is not started by January 1st. it’s null & void. He stated the Board would be gambling and it’s better to know what’s approved than the unknown? He stated he thinks this is the best plan they could have negotiated and the Board did fight for the
neighbors. Mr. Marshall he knows the Board fought for the neighbors and appreciates it. Chairman Ackerman stated that he felt based on the traffic study this is the best number. He didn’t’ want to gamble and perhaps get a higher number from HAC. Joe stated he has heard a lot of concerns from neighbors and in regards to the fencing around the pond. Once the development is build then the condo association will govern the area.
Peter made motion to move that the Comprehensive Permit dated May 20, 2004 for Pineridge Condominiums, Case 2468C be modified as shown on the plan entitled “Green Pine Town Homes” Modified Comprehensive Permit Site Plan of Land in Taunton, Ma dated February 24, 2010 and as provided for in the letter dated February 24, 2010 with the following changes: Seconded by Troy.
1. Compliance with the Briarwood Drive Sewer System Performance Guarantee Agreement which is made part of the record.
2. Agreement to provide sewer stubs to 78 & 88 Briarwood Drive along Easement area not on the roadway so the houses can tie into the existing septic line.
3. Modification of the proposed post & rail fence along Marshall property as discussed at hearing.
4. All conditions not modified be upheld in full force and effect.
The following members of the Board of Appeals voted to grant the modification subject to the above-stated terms:
Joseph Amaral ……………………………………... Yes
Troy Medeiros ……………………………………… Yes
Wayne Berube ……….. …………………………..Yes
Peter Wasylow ……………………………………… Yes
Dennis Ackerman ……………………………………..Yes
Modification Granted:
Meeting adjourned at 9:06 PM.
| 
