CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 16, 2010
At 5:30 PM. at Taunton Public Library Auditorium, 12 Pleasant St.
Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Peter Wasylow, Wayne Berube, Michael Staples, Medeiros and John Joyce. Joe Amaral present at 5:46 PM.
Meeting opens at 5:37 P.M.
Pete made motion to accept minutes of November 18, 2010 meeting, seconded by Wayne. 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.
Request from Asst. DPW Commissioner – requesting the $100,000 monies from TGIFriday’s to be re-allocated from Construction and Land taking Mtigation to Construction Design of Hart’s Four Corners . Need vote from Board.
Chairman Ackerman stated that part of the mitigation with TGIFridays was $100,000 to be allocated for construction and land taking mitigation. The request is to allocate it to Construction Design of Hart’s Four Corners. The Asst. DPW Comissioner, Tony Abreau submitted letter requesting switch to construction. They have estimate from Vanasse Hagen Inc. to do the work.
Troy said he heard there was not any money posted yet. Chairman Ackerman informed him of the monies that were posted way back when TGIFridays came before the Board. The monies from the apprpoval for CVS hasn’t been posted yet. Atty. Gay was in the audience and stated they are still going to meet their obligations. Troy asked if there is any money left over are they going to return any unused funds? It was answered no.
Peter made motion to re-allocated $62,000 from the TGIFriday’s monies from construction and land takings to construction design of Hart’s Four Corners to allow Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. to perform the necessary design work. Seconded by Wayne,all in favor.
Cont’d. Case # 3017 Frenette 815 Middleboro Avenue.
A Variance from Section 6.3 to allow the division of one lot into 6 lots having 0 frontage on a public street (instead of 150 feet) but having access via Westcoat Drive, a private Way.
Request to continue and waive the time frame.
Vote: Ackerman, Waslow, Berube, Medeiros, Amaral……Yes
Petition continued:
Pagliuca Pagliuca 175 Fremont St.
Hearing held on September 9, 2010. October 14, 2010, November 18, 2010 and Dec. 16, 2010
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into two lots. Lot 1 having 39,120 sq. ft. of lot area and dry area and Lot 2 having 32,453 sq. ft. of lot area and dry area (instead of 60,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 43,460 sq. ft of dry area) Each lot having 120 feet of frontage (nstead of 150’) Lot 1 having a sideline setback of 22 feet and Lot 2 having a sideline setback of 20 feet (instead of 25’)
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Letter from Chad Allen, 168 Fremont St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposed: None
Atty. Gay stated he represents Philip Pagliuca who inherited this property from family. The property contains a two-family house, building that has been used for seafood business, mobile home and 2 car garage that will be removed. The intention is to construct one single family dwelling on the new lot. Atty. Gay met with abutters and has drafted conditions and one of the abutters has no issues with them. Letter from Chad Allen, 168 Fremont St. was read into the record in favor to include conditions. The new lot will be serviced by a septic system and city water. Wayne asked if the applicant plans on living there? Philip Pagliuca stated he inherited the property and he rents out 2 family and he is going to live in new house. It was asked where the new house is going to be located? Mr. Pagliuca
stated it depends on where it percs. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept., Conservation Commission and Water Dept. were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to grant as presented with the following conditions:
- The existing mobile home shown on Lot 1 must be removed.
- The existing garage building and former Dave’s Seafood building shown on Lot 2 must be removed.
The new house to be placed on Lot 2 will meet all of the side line and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for a Rural Residential District lot, 25 foot sideline setback minimum and 40 foot front yard setback minimum.
The existing driveway that serviced the former seafood building and garage shown on Lot 2 must be removed and a new landscaped yard will be part of the new construction. New driveway and all landscaping will be designed to keep all water that accumulates on the lot and not allow water to flow from Lot 2 onto abutting properties or across Fremont Street.
During the construction of the home if ledge is encountered, ledge will be handled without blasting.
The septic system will be installed in accordance with Title 5 Standards.
Single family dwelling constructed on Lot 2 and must be serviced by City Water.
Vote: Ackerman, Wasylow, Berube, Amaral, Medeiros…….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #3047 Thibault 228 Tremont St.
Hearing held on October 14, 2010 & Dec. 16, 2010
For: A Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 2 lots with lot 1 being a conforming lot with a side setback of 5 feet (instead of 25 feet) Lot 2 containing 18,987 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 60,000 sq. ft of lot area and 43,560 sq. ft. of dry area) with 75.56 feet of frontage and lot width (instead of 150’ of frontage & 100 ‘ of lot width) with a 5 foot side setback (instead of 25 feet) for the existing garage.
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Darren Thibault, 228 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: Bernard Slaney, 9 Wilde Ave., Taunton, Ma.
Atty. Gay stated this property is located on Tremont Street located in the Rural Residential District. However this is where the zoning changes from Urban to Rural. If this property was zoned Urban then they would not be here tonight. The petitioner purchased as 2 separate lots and together they are just about 2.7 acres. This was part of an old subdivision, Tremont Place. One lot have the existing house and needs a sideline setback and new lot has the existing garage on it. The long range plan is to remodel and move the existing dwelling and put new house on new lot. Atty. Gay stated the hardship is the size, shape and location of the existing dwelling. They cannot move the house due to the wetland and location of the Three Mile River. Joe asked about the existing driveway for
the existing garage? The driveway is on other side. Joe stated he has received a few phone calls relative to flooding in this area. Lot 2 is completely dry but Atty. Gay stated they have not flagged the wetland line yet. Wayne stated the plans are dated 8/11010 so the lots have merged for zoning purposes? Atty. Gay answers yes. Wayne pointed out the pan handle shaped lot and the need for a sideline setback for the existing house? Wayne stated they could take garage down and not need a variance. He stated you cannot guarantee the property will stay I the family and it’s close to the line. Atty. Gay stated he instructed the engineer to draw up plan like that. Wayne stated they are creating hardship in the way they are proposing to split lot? There was some discussion about they are going to remodel house and turn house resulting in being further away from the property line but that’s not going to happen
overnight. So they are asking for a sideline variance. Joe asked how long has the applicant owned the property? Atty. Gay stated he purchased both lots in 2008 and his son lives in the existing house and they plan on putting new house on new lot for son and parents will live in old house. Atty. Gay stated they could take down garage and cold re-design the lot to have a larger lot. They could give new plans showing no garage and new lot. He suggested a continuance to come up with new proposal. Atty. Gay asked for a 2 month continuance to give time for new plans and possibly new legal ad. DECEMBER 16, 2010 - Atty. Gay stated they had presented plans to keep the existing garage but after hearing the Board’s concerns they continued and change plans. They are now taking down old garage. Atty. Gay stated there is not enough area to move the lot line and 20,000 sq. ft. is a good sized lot
and bigger than a lot in the neighborhood. The topography of the lot, along with the fact the area slopes down towards the Three Mile River creates a hardship. He states any construction would not adversely affect anyone accept the petitioner because he would be his own abutter. Atty. Gay states this property abuts the Urban Residential District and those requirements are 15,000 sq. ft. lots. Darren Thibault, and Arthur Borden Associates were in attendance.
Mr. Borden indicated by removing the garage they will have 110 square feet less impervious area. No one in favor or opposed. Letters from the City Planner, Water Dept., B.O.H., Fire Dept., and Conservation Commission were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Ackerman, Staples, Amaral, Berube, …….……... Yes
Wasylow………………………………………No
Petition Granted:
Case #3055 Doherty 24 Fairview Avenue
Hearing held on December 16, 2010
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 to allow the extension of a pre-existing non-conforming structure by allowing a 6’ x 23’ deck having a 17 foot front yard setback (instead of 25 feet)
For the Petitioner: Norman Bilodeau, 259 Plain St. representing Eleanor Doherty.
In favor: Letter from Robert Pirozzi, Bldg. Commissioner
Opposed: None
Mr. Bilodeau stated he’s here tonight because they needed to add second means of egress per the Building Department and they built deck not aware of having to comply with a 25 foot front yard because of the paper street. Mr. Bilodeau stated he pulled permit to put 2nd means of egress and built deck to connect all together and the Building Commissioner brought it to his attention. It was asked if the deck was built? Mr. Bilodeau answered yes. Letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission, Fire Dept.., Bldg. Comm. were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to grant as presented.
VOTE: Medeiros, Ackerman, Berube, Wasylow, Amaral.. …….……... Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #3056 Dbaib 272 Winthrop St. Hearing held on Dec. 16, 2010
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a Highway Business Use on a lot having 115 feet of frontage (instead of 150 feet) on premises situated at 272 Winthrop Street, Taunton, Ma.
For the Petitioner: Atty. William Rounds, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Letter from Robert Pirozzi, Bldg. Comm., City of Taunton
Opposed: Danielle Briggs, 268 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma.
Juanita Gallagher, 145 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma.
Augustus Gomes, 273 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma.
Anna Hawes, 545 Cohannet St., Taunton, Ma.
Maureen Boiros, 597 Cohannet St., Taunton, Ma. Taunton Highlands Area
Neighborhood Assoc.
Carol Doherty, 148 Highland St. Taunton, Ma. Taunton Highlands Area
Neighborhood Assoc.
Roberta Shafer, 6 Davenport St., Taunton, Ma Taunton Highlands Area
Neighborhood Assoc.
Atty. Rounds stated the petitioner owns property at 227 Winthrop Street which has 115 feet of frontage in a Highway Business District. The property needs a variance frontage to be allowed to use as a Highway Business Use. The property has a house located on it but according to the Law Dept. and City Planner the use has been discontinued. There are wetlands in back of this property. Atty. Rounds stated if they get a variance for frontage they can essentially make use of the property. There is an approved site plan review for auto sales that was issued 3 years ago. But we cannot use that approval without variance for waiver of frontage. The frontage requirement was caught at the tail end of the site plan review process. Atty. Rounds stated his clients applied for variance more than a year ago but
withdrew his request. He only got involved with this project 6 months ago. If they wish to use property for another use they would need to go thru the site plan review process again and possibly other approvals depending on the use. This approval will allow them to go forward with approval site plan review or another use. Atty. Rounds stated there is a hardship because they cannot do anything with the property because the use has been discontinued. Chairman Ackerman on the submitted plans to the ZBA is shows auto repair which requires a special permit from the Municipal Council. Atty. Rounds stated he is aware of that. John asked if all taxes have been paid. Chairman Ackerman stated yes they received paid receipt for the file. Joe stated in the approved site plan review for auto sales it clearly indicated no repair work, hours of operation. Atty. Rounds stated they are aware of the approved site plan review on record.
Atty. Berube asked what the relationship is between the owners of 272 & 274 Winthrop St.? Atty. Rounds answers they are brothers. Att. Rounds is aware of the problems that are next door and there are no plans to move or combine that business with this property. Wayne recognizes that his clients wants to work. Dept. letter from the City Planner, Bldg. Comm., B.O.H., Conservation Commission were read into the record.
Chairman Ackerman stated that they came before us a year or two ago and the place has been an eyesore and the City took them to court and apparently lost in court. The City Planner indicated this is the first step in moving forward and having some “teeth” if we need to go to court. Wayne asked why the lessee can operate the way he has been is unimaginable. There is some kind of lack of enforcements through the Council. Atty. Rounds stated the service station at 274 Winthrop street pre-dates zoning and it’s unclear of the grandfathering status. Kevin stated the new use on this site will be subject to the Zoning Ordinance and SPR conditions. Wayne stated he is aware these are two separate parcels but he is extremely upset of the late hours it does have influence on this property.
Wayne stated the hours of operation in the City Planner’s letter. John asked the car lot is just on this lot? He wanted to point out that the stuff going on next door will still be going on? He doesn’t want the neighbors to think if this property get approval all the stuff next door will improve. He stated it’s not going to put teeth in any enforcement for Planet Petroleum property. Peter stated that has no bearing on this case, that’s next door. Wayne stated yes it does because the owners next door have wreckless abandonment and this will put definition in the two properties. Atty. Rounds states this is not the total solution. We have no control over Planet Petroleum and we need to concentrate on this property. John states this does have some bearing on the neighboring property. They have been a little extreme and this will separate lots. No one in favor of proposal.
Danielle Briggs, 268 Winthrop Street, opposed. She submitted documentation to the Board showing a pattern of the applicant not following the City ordinances. She went through her file going back to 2004 when the received building permit to sheetrock a room and they remove landscaping. They brought truck loads of loam and paved the property in 2003. They received notice from Conservation Commission on September 13, 2004 and nothing was done. She stated a tow business operates there and in 2009 their request was withdraw with prejudice. In August 2009 there was some vegetation taken out without any approval from the Conservation Commission. He continues to not follow the City’s rules & regulations. There were several dates, August 10, 2009, August 24, 2009 and September 14, 2009 where there issues with the Conservation Commission but nothing was ever done? She stated there was a “discrepancy” with the lot line and
now someone has changed the GIS viewer. She paid for someone to survey her property. She stated her property abuts 272 Winthrop Street and not 274 as previously assumed. Troy asked why she is opposed, this will help her? She stated she doesn’t believe they will follows rules and she has lived next to this place and is tired of it. Chairman Ackerman stated that they can put condition for fencing along her property. Mrs. Briggs asked the Board what makes you think they are going to follow the rules now when they haven’t in the past? Chairman Ackerman stated the city officials think this will gain control for enforcement. Mrs. Briggs stated they were told to move a piece of equipment and they just moved it yesterday probably because of this meeting. Troy said according to the City officials we can have some teeth. Joe stated he understands her concerns but this Board refers the zoning violations
to the Zoning Enforcement Office. Chairman Ackerman sympathizes with the abutters but he thinks based on the city officials this is the best way to go. He agrees they have complete disregard for the city laws. Dick Shafer, 6 Davenport St. asked if the Board can require some type of bond in the amount of the buffer in case they don’t do it the City can with the provided funds. He stated Mrs. Briggs’ property has been damaged. Mr. Shafer suggested or at least require buffer to be put in first. Joe asked Mr. Shafer if he was in favor of opposed. Mr. Shafer initially agreed with the City official s but now has no confidence he will follow rules. Wayne states the City Solicitor will now have something to enforce. Mrs. Briggs asked who to call for zoning enforcement and she was told the Building Department. Opposed: Juanita Gallagher, 145 Winthrop Street stated she agrees with Mrs. Briggs, they won’t follow
rules. She has no faith in the City’s law department. She agrees that the applicant has not followed anything he was supposed to do. She stated when she appeared before this Board a couple of years ago for a case she wasn’t satisified. Wayne asked what should we do? He agrees they have been a terrible, uncooperative neighbor. But he’s believes Atty. Rounds when he says they will do what he said they will do. We vote on the evidence presented to them. Joe stated he remembers Mrs. Gallagher’s case and if she had any issues she could have called him. Augustus Gomes, 273 Winthrop Street opposed. He lives right across the street and they are always bringing cars to the property all hours of the night and it’s getting worse. Opposed. Anna Hawes, 545 Cohannet St., representing the Taunton Highlands Area Neighborhood Assoc. She asked if approved how long would fencing and buffer go
in? The decisions are recorded at the Registry of Deeds and are enforceable. Chairman Ackerman stated the Board could condition it that it must go in prior to bldg. permit. Mrs. Hawes stated that she may be in favor, individually, if they put conditions on it. Marty Bentley, 9 Earl St., asked who makes sure they plant what they are suppose to do? Chairman Ackerman stated if they don’t comply with the Variance & DSPR conditions the Zoning Enforcement Office can be called. Atty. Rounds stated that a lot has been said tonight from abutters but nothing about frontage and that is what they are here for. Chairman Ackerman asked Atty. Rounds when could they put fencing up? Atty. Rounds answers it would be at least after the appeal period and maybe not during the winter months. Atty. Rounds’ client doesn’t agree on everything has been said her tonight. Wayne stated it’s difficult because you don’t
know what really is going in there? Atty. Rounds said have approval for auto sales with a list of conditions and if they chose another use they will need to go back to the DSPR and possibly other departments for approval.
Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept., Conservation Commission and Water Dept. were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to grant as presented with the following conditions:
- A 6 foot stockade fence shall be erected along the side property line abutting 274 Winthrop Street. The fence will start 10 feet back from front property line and extend 150 feet towards the rear of the property. A 6 foot stockade fence shall be erected along the property line abutting 268 Winthrop Street. The fence will start 10 feet back from the property line and extend 165 feet towards the rear of the property. This fence shall be located on the 272 Winthrop Street lot and set back 2 feet from the side property line shared with 268 Winthrop Street. Fencing shall be installed by April 15, 2011.
- Petitioner must comply with Departmental Site Plan Review dated August 28, 2007 for a 24 vehicle used car sales lot unless some other permitted use is made of the subject property.
Vote: Medeiros, Amaral, Ackerman, Berube, Wasylow……..….Yes
Petition Granted:
John Joyce excused at 6:55 PM
Case #3023 Costa 51 Summer St.
Hearing held on June 10, 2010, July 15, 2010, Sept. 9, 2010, Oct. 14, 2010 and Dec. 16, 2010
A Variance from Section 7.8 for a dwelling conversion of a single family to a 2-family having 13,651 sq. ft. instead of 15,000 sq. f t.
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: Dr. Joseph Nates, 54 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
Atty. Lisa Nate, 54 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
Steven Wyrosdic, 58 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
.
Opposition: Ed Smith, 56 Summer St., Taunton, Ma
Letter from Patricia M. McSweeney, 43 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
Atty. Gay stated the petitioner purchased the property and wishes to convert it to a two-family dwelling. Under Section 7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance it states if you have 15,000 sq. ft. you can convert to a use allowed in the district. The City Planner informed them because they don’t have the required lot size they need variance. Atty. Gay stat4ed there will be no alteration outside, just inside and they don’t agree with the City Planner but are here tonight. The house was built in 1814 and is a pre-existing non-confirming house and lot size. He stated in the Zoning Ordinance if there is less than 10% of expansion or alteration they could do as a matter of right. They wish to restore the property in a nice way. This property is 2 houses down from Catholic Middle School and
there are many 3 family dwellings in the area. Atty. Gay stated there are a lot of these larger Victorian style houses located along Dean St., Summer St., Broadway & Winthrop Street. They don’t lend themselves to single family houses. They are actually reducing the number of bedrooms. They have 7 bedrooms and they will make 2 units with 3 bedrooms each. There are large trees covering house and they are proposing improvements to the property. Atty. Gay stated the hardship is based on the lot size and the existing location along a major road going into the downtown area. Wayne stated the house was bought in foreclosure for $117,000. Atty. Gay stated the applicant doesn’t intend to live there and will fix house up and will be spending close to $150,000 totalling about 300,000. Atty. Gay stated he needs to convert in order for him to afford it. Wayne stated why did he buy it if he can’t afford it? Each case
stand on it’s own merits. This will be an absentee landlord house. The house was constructed in the 1800’s and it’s a good size house. Atty. Gay stated it doesn’t lend itself to a single family dwlling, it a large house close to the road. The house is empty and has been for sale form sometime. Joe stated the house is a large Victorian house. The surrounding properties, 49 Summer St. is a 3 family, 57 Summer is a 3 family and 54 Summer St. is a 2 family. Joe stated he didn’t cut up lot creating this and it’s like along Winthrop Street, nice big home but they are not single family. John agrees with Wayne that there is no hardship. He bought the property knowing it was a single family dwelling. The hardship is the difficult market and it won’t market as a single family. Atty. Gay stated he has offer and he advises him to place a contingency on it but he had to
act quick or he would lose out on the deal. Oppose: Ed Smith, 56 Summer St. stated he’s opposed. He stated the financial hardship was created by the petitioner. He stated he has 3 teenage children and having a large house has its benefits. He has lived there for 14 years and this property is located within the Historic District. Prior to meetings the proper procedure was not followed. He stated there are other multifamilies in the neighborhood but there are single families too. John agrees but there is a small market for single family dwelling of this house size. Mr. Smith stated the petitioner agreed it was a risk when he purchased the property. Lisa Nates, 54 Summer St., opposed. She stated there are 5 single family dwellings in close proximity of this house and they are all in the historic district. She stated he appeared before the Historic District Commission because he tore down the
chimney because they said they weren’t working. She has seen the use of those chimneys. The stated this was a income venture for the petitioner. She’s afraid if you allow this one then it will create a dominos effect. She wasn’t sure it the house had 7 bedrooms as previously stated. He was ordered by the Historic District Commission to put chimney back up. Dr. Joseph Nates, 54 Summer St. stated he has lived there for 54 years and it has always been a single family dwelling. He stated there are 3 schools, rooming house, and church in the immediate area. He did say there are multifamily houses but there are also single family dwellings. He doesn’t agree the petitioner has hardship, he purchased the property knowing it was only a single family dwelling. Letters from Patricia McSweeney,43 Summer St. opposed. Steven Wyrosdic, Opposed: 58 Summer St., stated in 2004 he purchased his house
for $400,000 and it’s a single family dwelling. Atty. Gay stated the petitioner own other properties in the city of which he has improved. The Board asked what addresses? Atty. Gay stated 249 Somerset Ave., - 4 family, 57 First St – 4-family, 33 Hodges St., and 2 family at 3 Webster St. He owns a new single family in Frazier Pasture Farms. Atty. Gay stated he took chimney down because it wasn’t safe. He will be putting back up. He stated the house is close to the street, only 12 feet. The property has been on the market for over a year and he will make house looks nice which will benefit the gateway to the City. Chairman Ackerman recommends continuing so they can have documents from the Historic District Commission. Chairman Ackerman would like to see what they said. Letters from the B.O.H., Water Dept., Fire Dept., City Planner and Conservation Commission were read into the record. Joe stated he
would continue. Joe stated he know what he bought. Wayne stated he didn’t’ need to continue.
Motion made and seconded to continue until next month. Have petitioner forward the Historic District communication to the ZBA… Send copy of Historic District communication to the opposition.
December 16, 12010: Atty. Gay presented case again so all members could vote. Atty. Gay stated they are trying to make the existing single family dwelling into a two-family dwelling. The petitioner has a good history of repairing properties and making the beautiful. This property is located just within the entrance to the City, next to city Hall and the Star building. Atty. Gay stated they have had discussions with neighbors and their issues are with the existing 3-family next door. They have come to agreement with neighbors. Lisa Nates, representing herself and her father, Dr. Joseph Nates are now in favor of proposed conditions. She is worried about absentee landlords. She knows Mr. Costa does good work and now she feels at ease. Steve Wyrosdic, 58 Summer St. is now in
favor. Letter from the City Planner, Fire Dept., B.O.H., and Conservation Commission were read into the record.
- The garage will stay as is, a three-car garage subject to Historic Commission approval but will be renovated and upgraded.
- Only two (2) additional parking spaces will be required outside the garage and those will be to the south side of the garage. Other than that area, no additional pavement is allowed. No additional curb cuts and no additional driveways, including any wrap around driveway, are allowed.
- The shutters on the front of the home would be replaced and all home improvements will be in accordance with the Historic District Commission’s requirements.
- Trees on the south side of the property that need to be removed will be including those that are either a danger to the entrance and exit or are not in good condition. The last two pine trees/cypress trees will stay as will the large maple tree. The area will be nicely and appropriately landscaped.
- On the north side of the property the blue spruce tree will stay and there will be selective trimming of the other trees as necessary to protect the building.
- Each unit will be a two bedroom unit with an office or study as the third room.
- When property renovations are complete and ready for occupancy, whenever the property is sold or conveyed, it will be sold or conveyed as owner occupied property. Applicant will consider the possibility of making the property two condo units.
Any fence would be subject to the Historic District Commission.
The dwelling must comply with the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, State Sanitary Code, Chapter II.
Hardwired interconnected smoke detectors located throughout existing single family unit and proposed second unit must conform to new construction requirements, 780 CMR 9.0. Carbon monoxide detectors are required M.G.L. 148 sec. 26F1/2 and 527 CMR 31. A permit for a fire warning must be obtained from the Office of Fire Prevention before a building permit is signed.
If the 2 units are sold separately rather than rented, they will need separate water services.
No fire escapes visible from the street are allowed.
Vote: Medeiros, Amaral, Ackerman, Berube, Staples….. Yes.
PETITION GRANTED:
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on 48 Broadway – Class II Wholesale License -
The Settlement- Phase II – Reduction of surety for lot releases.
Copy of Vine’s letter was read into the record with a cost to complete estimate of $97,000 completed through Dec. 3, 2010.
Peter made motion to reduce the surety to $97,000 (based on Vine’s letter) and future lot releases can be released upon receipt of $4,850 per lot. Seconded by Wayne. All in favor.
Update on 48 Broadway – Claas II Wholesale License
Detective Dennis Smith submitted information and regulations of the Class II Wholesale License.
Wayne made motion to forward a letter to the Zoning Enforcement Office for enforcement of all provisions of the law detailing with a Wholesaler’s Class II License. More particularly no signs should be advertised or placed on site and no unregistered vehicles for sale on site. Seconded by Joe. All in favor
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM.
| 
