Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
4-14-11 mins.


CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
                                                APRIL 14, 2011 at 5:30 PM
(held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St., Taunton, Ma)

Members Present:  Wasylow, Staples, Joyce, and Ackerman.

Meeting called to order at 5:33 PM

Amaral present at 5:41 PM.

John made motion to accept minutes of March 10, 2011 seconded by Peter. 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.   
 
The Settlement – letter requesting minor change of lot lines for Lots 5 & 6.
Joe Malloch stated they are requesting a minor change in the lot lines for lots 5 & 6.  Due to an engineering error it was discovered that Lot 5 have 98’ of frontage instead of 100’.  This was because they shifted road for vernal pool.  

Peter made motion to find this is a minor change and approve the change in the lots lines for Lots 5 & 6 to comply with the 100 feet of frontage requirement.Seconded by John.
Vote:  Staples, Wasylow, Ackerman, Amaral……...Yes.

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.       
Letter from Atty. Strojny requesting a continance until June.  
Motion made and seconded to grant continuance until June 9, 2011.
VOTE: Ackerman, Amaral, Wasylow, Joyce and Staples….Yes
Petition continued to June 9, 2011

Case #2823- Remanded                  Lamb                                 Rosewood Drive, Lot 25
Hearing held on April 14, 2011

A Special Permit from Section 2.1 & Variance from Section 6.3 of the Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on a parcel of land without having the required dry area (having 23,800 sq. ft. of contiguous upland instead of 43,560 sq. ft.) also being accessed by a common driveway resulting in a common driveway servicing 3 lots on premises situated on the north side of Rosewood Drive, Taunton, Ma. and is known on Assessor’s Reference Map 36, Lots 24 & 25.
                          
For the Petitioner: Atty. Matthew Costa, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.                                              
In favor: None
Opposed: Jane Andrews, 95 Rosewood Drive, Taunton, Ma.
                Marty & Lynne Desjardins, 100 Rosewood Drive, Taunton, Ma.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
Atty. Costa stated that Atty. Gay made presentation last month.  They submitted copy of common driveway confirming easement signed by both parties.  There is a covenant about maintenance and repair.   Atty. Costa stated there is letter from City Solicitor directing the Board to follow the court’s judgment in granting with 3 specific conditions.   Chairman Ackerman stated he has no problem as long as they put condition the City get re-imbursed for payment of legal ad.  Atty. Costa stated he agrees to pay for legal advertisement.  Opposed: Jane Andrews, 90 Rosewood Dr. stated they are now faced with the burden of having to maintain a paved driveway because of this approval.  She stated that due to an error made from previous owner the driveway easement was incorrect.  In turn, they had to sign documents all over again.     She stated that now the driveway is gravel and because of the court’s case it will be required pavement.  This creates a burden on them because it’s a lot easier to maintain a gravel driveway opposed to a paved driveway.  She is now being forced to take on a financial burden.  Chairman Ackerman stated their hands are tied by the court’s decision.  John stated that contracts to the court’s decision Ms. Andrews states it’s disappointing they have to go to court.   Chairman Ackerman stated this wasn’t the present City Solicitor’s fault.  Jane agreed, Mrs. Estey has been very helpful.  Ms. Andrews is baffled as to why the court would throw out the ZBA decision.  Peter stated the City didn’t’ represent us in court.  Ms. Andrews stated they originally did.   Opposed:  Lynne DesJardins, 100 Rosewood Drive, Taunton, Ma.  She is concerned for safety, maintenance of driveway which his shared by 3 houses.    She too instated it imposing a financial burden on them.  Atty. Costa stated if all property owners agree they can leave driveway dirt.  It was discussed that the City department letters from the Fire Dept. and City Planner recommends paving the driveway for safety purposes.  Peter stated they are asking the Board to uphold the original decision in accordance with the court’s decision.  Atty. Costa stated the petitioner has full intention of working with neighbors.  He stated the driveway is already paved to the bridge.  Mike stated the letter from City Solicitor states we should approve with reasonable conditions.  In the original letter from Fire Dept. stated they recommend 18 foot wide paved driveway.  Joe spoke to the City Planner and he advised to follow the court order.  John stated the court’s decision is remarkable clear in ordering us to grant with specific conditions and any other that we deem reasonable.   Ms. Andrews asks how can the petitioner pave land they don’t own?   There was some discussion relative to the paving of the driveway that run over Ms. Andrews property.  The original conditions specifically states paving the driveway to a minimum of 18 feet wide from Rosewood Drive to the lot line separating #90 and #100 for 2 way access and safe access for fire engines. There was more discussion relative to the interpretation of that condition.  Atty. Costa submitted the petitioner’s interpretation of that condition. It is as follows: “The petitioner’s position is that the condition number 1, required by the Superior Court’s decision, namely “ the access drive be widened and paved to a minimum of 18 feet wide from Rosewood Drive to the lot line separating #90 and #100 for 2 way access for fire engines” refers to the lot line between the petitioner’s property and the neighboring properties, 90 and 100 Rosewood Drive and the Court did not intend its decision to require widening or paving of the common driveway beyond the petitioner’s boundary line.  Atty. Costa stated that its his reasonable interpretation that it’s up to the petitioner’s boundary line and not beyond that because that’s beyond the case.        Letters from the Water Dept., B.O.H., Fire Dept., Conservation Commission and Law Dept. were read into the record.   Peter was upset that the City didn’t not appear in court on our behalf.  John stated if the court is ordering us to grant variance then let grant it. Atty. Costa stated the court doesn’t have the power to grant variances.  Peter stated the City dropped the ball. Atty. Costa stated this is an unusual case and you don’t have an option to deny.      John stated we could put reasonable conditions.
  • The access drive be widened and paved to a minimum of 18 feet wide from Rosewood Drive to the lot line separating #90 and #100 for 2 way access and safe access for fire engines.  
  • The access drive shall be maintained and kept free of accumulating snow during the winter.
  • Certification from a structural engineer that the bridge is designed to a sufficient standard to safely accommodate fire engines and all other emergency vehicles.   
  •  The petitioner must reimburse the City of Taunton’s Law Dept. in the amount of $349.20 for the legal advertisement.  
 
Vote:   Ackerman, Staples, Joyce, Amaral    ….………………Yes
Wasylow………..…………………………………………….……..No
Petition Granted:


Case #3067                       Mu Han Martial Arts                             174 Broadway
Hearing held on April 14, 2011     
For:  A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a Martial Arts Studio on the second & third floors (3,500 sq. ft.).

For the Petitioner:   Fie Pan, Hong Kong City, 174 Broadway, Taunton, Ma.  
                                Master Jin Ho, Mu Ha Martial Arts, 23 No. Main St., Taunton, Ma
                               
In favor:  None
Opposed:  None

Mr. Pan states he has been in business for the last 5 years, Hong Kong City, and he has extra space on the second & third floors.  He has been trainer under Master Jin Ho, and he wishes to bring his martial arts studio Taunton.    Mr. Pan stated that during the week they do not use that space.  This would allow the space to be occupied and provide a service to the community.  No one appearing in favor or against.  Letters from the B.O.H., City Planner, Water Dept., Conservation Commission and Fire Dept.

Motion made and seconded to grant as presented.

Vote:  Ackerman, Wasylow, Amaral, Staples ....................Yes.
Petition Granted:   

Case #3068                                 McQuiggan                                      12 Belvoir Ave.
Hearing held on April 14, 2011     
For:  A variance from Section 6.3 to allow a 16’ x 25’ garage having a 5 foot sideline setback instead of 15 feet feet.
 
For the Petitioner:  James McQuiggan, 12 Belvoir Ave., Taunton, Ma.  
                               
In favor:  None
Opposed:  None

Mr. McQuiggan is asking for variance to be able to construct a 16’ x 25’ garage to a newly constructed house.  The Board asked why can’t he put garage on other side?  He stated this lot was subject to Case # 3004 and there was a condition to leave a 33’ sideline setback on that side. Letters from the  Conservation Commission, City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept. and Water Dept. were read into the record.       

Motion made and seconded to grant as presented. .
Vote:  Ackerman, Wasylow, Amaral, Staples ....................Yes.
Petition Granted:   

Case #3069                                     Figueiredo                                          19 Second St.    
Hearing held on April 14, 2011     
For:  A Variance from Section 6.3 and a Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 3 family dwelling in an Urban Residential District; with 84’ of frontage (instead of 100’) 82 feet of lot width (instead of 100’) with a front yard setback of 12 feet (instead of 25’) and a side yard setback of 6 feet (instead of 15’)
 
For the Petitioner:   Joseph Figueiredo, P O. Box 485, No. Dighton, Ma  
                               
In favor:  None
Opposed:  None

Mr. Figueiredo stated he wishes to convert the 2 family dwelling to 3 family dwelling.  He stated a portion of the building is 7 feet away from the front property line and it will remain the same.  Joe asked about the condition of the existing house ? Mr. Figueiredo stated it had fire and he is going to take down and re-build 3 family.  Joe asked if there is enough parking for 3 units.   It was answered yes.   Peter asked if there are any problems with the parking now?  Mr. Figueiredo answers no.  No one in favor or opposed.  Letters from the Conservation Commission, City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept. and Water Dept. were read into the record.       

Motion made and seconded to grant as presented with the following conditions:

  • A new water meter will be required prior to the construction.
  • The dwellings must comply with the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, State Sanitary Code, Chapter II.
  • Fire Suppression System shall be installed throughout the proposed 3 family unit according to NFPA-13 & related NFPA standards. (sprinklers) MGL Chapter 148, sec. 261.
  • Fire alarm system installed throughout the proposed 3 family unit.
  • Fire Suppression & Fire Alarm drawings must be submitted for review (two sets) before the fire department signs a building permit application.  Fire Suppression drawings must be stamped by a Mass. Fire Protection Engineer.  
  • Fire extinguishers installed throughout common areas according to 527CMR 10.01 & NFPA 10.  
  • Dumpster permit required for dumpsters six yards or greater 527CMR 34.03.
Vote:  Ackerman, Wasylow, Amaral, Staples ....................Yes.

Petition Granted:   


Case # 3070                                 Wells                                                  54 Jackson St.
A Variance from Section 6.2, 6.25 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 3 lots without having the req’d.  frontage, lot width & shape factor.  Lot 1 having 93.70’ of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’) lot 2 having 0 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’) and lot 3 having 20 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’) with a shape factor of 55 (instead of 35) .                                                        
Petitioner requested a continuance due to there being only 4 members present.
Vote:  Ackerman, Amaral, Wasylow, Staples…..Yes
Petition continued to May 12, 2011

OTHER BUSINESS:

Letter from City Planner – relative to increase in fee schedule.
Chairman Ackerman stated that he spoke with the City Planner and he stated all Board are being asked to look at fee and possible increases.   The Board asked asked why specifically these couple of fee increases.?  John asked if the way it’s processed is different.  It was noted according to the ZBA rules & regs. There is no public hearing just has to be brought up at meeting and referred to next meeting for vote.       
John made motion to send letter to City Planner requesting his reasoning for the increase and the processing of these few items, seconded by Joe. All in favor.

Meeting adjourned at 7:14 PM