CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBR 8, 2015 – 6:00 pm.
(held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St, Taunton, Ma.)
Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Wayne Berube, Steven Vieira, Michael Staples , Joseph Amaral, George Moniz and Steven Figueiredo.
Meeting opens at 6:02 PM
Chairman Ackerman explains the ZBA process. The petitioner presents their case then they hear from anyone in favor or opposed then they go back to the petitioner to address any of the opposition concerns, they do not go back & forth.
.
Case #3296 Aranjo 1336 Middleboro Ave.
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for the division of one lot into two lots. Lot A having 27,374 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 60,000 sq. ft. lot area & 43,560 sq. ft. dry area) and 129.24’ of frontage (instead of 150’). Lot B having 26,286 sq. ft. lot area & dry area (instead of 60,000 sq. ft. lot area & 43,560 sq. ft. dry area)
For the Petitioner: Atty. Melinda Kwart, Percy Law Group, 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Atty. Kwart explains the property has been in the family for a longtime. The petitioner and her husband sold off the abutting property but kept this for their retirement. When the zoning changed from Urban Residential to Rural Residential they consulted an Attorney and had plans done for both lots. Some time passed and her husband passed away and now they find out they need variance to build on lot. They thought the lot was grandfathered. The petitioner and her daughter live on Lot A and they were in the process of selling lot B and found out they cannot get building permit. Atty. Kwart stated unfortunately the lots technically merged. Atty. Kwart stated the lot has insufficient frontage having 129 feet instead of 150 feet. Her clients is experiencing hardship as she was counting on this
for her retirement. She stated all the lots in the area are of similar size and as you can see on map the biggest lot is the cemetery. She stated to allow this lot to be developed would not hurt the overall area. Chairman Ackerman read letters from City Planner, B.O.H., and Conservation Commission into the record. Chairman Ackerman asked when was the zoning change? Atty. Kwart answers in 1988. He stated previously they turned down because lack of hardship. Chairman Ackerman stated the lot is square and has a lot of upland, therefore no hardship. Atty. Kwart stated there is a financial hardship because the petitioner was depending on this lot to be buildable to sell for her retirement. Wayne referenced the deed and the land was conveyed in 1978 and then in1990. The zoning changed in 1988 and now they are here in front of us. Atty. Kwart stated they did not realize the lots merged. She explained after all
the plans were drawn up for house they were made aware they would not be entitled to building permit. They had P&S on this lot. Wayne asked her who was the realtor and she answers Kelly Lewis. Chairman Ackerman stated perhaps they may have claim against previous attorney who put things in place for them a while back. Wayne stated a long time has passed and he doubts they can go after them now. Steve F. asked if they get 2 separate tax bills and she answers yes. Steve V. stated she should have gotten legal advice after her mom passed away. Joe asked if they have the tax bills and Atty. Kwart answers no. Wayne stated lots do merge that is why people put lots in different names. Atty. Kwart pleads with the Board that her clients did seek legal advice and they didn’t’ think things had changed when her mom passed away. Wayne stated that was over 20 years ago. Mrs. Aranjo spoke and stated she
thought the lot was grandfathered. She is not well and needs the money to do work on her home. No one appearing in favor or opposed.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira........ …No
Amaral, Staples…………………Yes
PETITION DENIED
Case #3278 – Remand Giatis, Inc. 983 County St.
For a Variance from Section 7.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reduction of parking from 100 parking spaces to 34 parking spaces for a total of 200 seats (for 2 eating establishments)
For the Petitioner: Atty. John-Paul Thomas, 98 County St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: Atty. Katherine Braucher Adams, Schlesinger and Buchbinder, LLP, 1200 Walnut St.,
Newton, Ma.
Atty. Thomas stated the Board previously granted approval for 150 seats for the sit down restaurant and the abutter (Rep. of Olive Garden) appealed. They unfortunately could not come to an agreement so the court remanded this case back to the ZBA. The original approval was for 34 parking spaces for Dunkin Donuts and the sit down restaurant. The sit down restaurant took over the convenience store space and wanted to expand. The City Planner stated they would need to come before the ZBA for a waiver of parking if we wanted to expand. Atty. Thomas stated at the last meeting they mistakenly said they could use the 12 additional spaces that the Olive Garden currently leases from this site for parking and that is not the case. The Board made their decision based on that and
it’s not true. Atty. Thomas asks the Board to consider reducing the number of parking spaces for Dunkin Donuts for 130 seats for the sit down restaurant. Chairman Ackerman read department letter from City Planner, B.O.H. and Conservation Commission into the file. Wayne asked Atty. Thomas if they were reducing the spaces from 34 to 5 for dunkin donuts and he answers yes. Atty Thomas stated Dunkin Donuts primarily peak hours are early a.m. and later afternoon so their parking can be reduced. Wayne asked how reducing the number of seats in the Dunkin Donuts will affect the business? Atty. Thomas answers the majority for business is from the drive-thru so it won’t affect it much. Opposed: Atty. Katherine Braucher Adams representing Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden) stated it doesn’t look like they are counting on the 13 parking spaces that Olive Garden leases. She hasn’t heard any hardship about the size and
shape of the lot that warrants granting the variance. She stated her client shares a lot with Smoky Bones and the ZBA in 2004 granted them a waiver of the parking. She asked the Board to be fair and give them same the consideration which would come out to 69 seats for the sit down restaurant. She stated the drastic increase in seating will force her client, Olive Garden, to police the parking lot. The lots connects in the rear and they don’t want to have to tow vehicles. She pointed out they have not taken into consideration the employees of the restaurant. Wayne asked if the lot is overcrowded and need towing and she answers no not now. Chairman Ackerman stated they have 54 seats now and they want add another 76 seats. Atty. Braucher Adams said yes more than double. The City Planner’s recommendation is 60 seats and she recommends 69 seats (the same ratio as Olive Garden) Atty. Thomas stated there are no other locations in
the area that can accommodate this business. He stated it was not malice intended when they used the middle location without zoning approval. It’s a family owned business and it would create a financial hardship if they were not able to add more seats. Chairman Ackerman stated we can’t use “financial hardship” as part of the criteria for granting variance since they just denied earlier case stating financial hardship. Atty. Thomas their clientele is businessman and woman who come for lunch and carpool. Joe asked how long has the store been gone and Atty. Thomas said 2 years. George stated it is a small parking lot. Wayne stated if they take 29 seats from Dunkin and added them to sit down restaurant totaling 89 seats. He wants to be fundamental fair. Atty. Thomas stated they could post NO parking Sign to prevent people from using those13 spaces. Chairman Ackerman allowed a recess to allow both Attorneys
to come to an agreement. Atty. Thomas stated they would be in agreement with 100 seats for sit down restaurant would be a 46 seat increase. Wayne asked about the 34 seats in Dunkin Donuts? There was some confusion because there is 34 seats in DD and 34 parking spaces total. Both Atty. Thomas and Atty. Braucher Adams were in agreement with 100 seats for the sit down restaurant and the existing 34 seats for DD for a total of 134. It was stated they would put condition if DD leaves or if sit down restaurant (known as Mediterranean Grille) leaves they would need to come back to ZBA.
Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions:
- The parking requirement for the Dunkin Donuts be reduced from the required 17 spaces for 34 seats to 5 spaces for 34 seats. This waiver would be for a Dunkin Donuts use ONLY. Any new restaurant or change of use in this space would result in an expiration in this waiver and require a new filing with the ZBA.
- The sit down restaurant be granted a waiver to have 100 seats with the then remaining 29 parking spaces available. This waiver would be for the Mediterranean Grille ONLY and any new restaurant would result in an expiration in this waiver.
- That there be no additional business located on the site (ie a 3rd business) in conjunction with the Dunkin Donuts and the sit down restaurant.
Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Amara, Staples. ........Yes
Petition Granted
Case # 3285 Larson Park Place (Prop. I.D. 98-2)
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot having 37,195 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 60,000 sq. ft. lot area & 43,560 sq. ft. dry area)
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Frank Gallagher, P.E., Gallagher Engineering, 4 Windsor
Court, Foxboro, Ma.
Terri Briand, 75 Metropolitan Ave., Cranston, R.I.
In favor: None
Opposed: William Mayer, 204 Park Place, Raynham, Ma.
Jennifer Cote, 111 Park Place, Raynham, Ma.
Eugenia White, 112 Park Place, Raynham, Ma.
Diane Dickman, 106 Park Place,#6 Raynham, Ma.
Stephen Smith, 507 Park Place, Raynham, Ma.
Alan LeBlanc, 401 Park Place, Raynham,Ma.
Gloria Croteau, 107 Park Place, Raynham, Ma.
Chairman Ackerman steps down because he wasn’t present for previous hearing. Steve Vieira acts as Chairman
Atty. Gay stated he was not present in August when the Board initially heard this case. He explains about the access road and the easement. He provided copies of building permits from 1989 and 1990 for the 2 family dwelling across the street. The subdivision was developed under the Urban Residential District but the side where the cemetery is was never developed. The condos in Raynham was known as Cranberry Village and the Grantee Ken Larson, Trustee of Pond View Trust granted the condos rights to travel over Park Place and the burden of the road is on the grantors. Both parties have the right to pass over it and maintain it. They create a ROW on subdivision road to allow the condo residents to go in and out. The Taunton Planning Board approval in 1987 states the Raynham part was not approved
then they would need to construct a cul-de-sac. Wayne stated they wanted to know is responsible and the easement states it. Joe didn’t understand the 2 existing duplex homes do not contribute toward the maintenance? Atty. Gay stated the easement states both have obligations if the ROW needs fixing. Atty. Gay stated the condos pay because it’s their only way in. They could ask the other dwellings to contribute? He stated its open to public access but private when it comes to snowplowing. Steve F. stated they pay taxes but don’t get the plowing services? Wayne stated the 2 duplexes pay taxes but they don’t contribute to the plowing? Steve V. asked what is the hardship? Atty. Gay stated this lot was created by the P.B. but due to the zoning change now is not grandfathered. Atty. Gay points out its unusual shape and boundary line with the cemetery. Steve V. asked
isn’t it grandfathered? Atty. Gay stated he did not speak with the City Planner but he thinks because some time went by. Atty. Gay stated he knows there were questions about providing buffer and they will be happy to. They propose 15 foot no touch plus they will do their best to save as many trees as possible. Joe asked if the condos were in Taunton would it have been accepted? Wayne asked they define how much trees would stay. Mr. Gallagher said he would define trees. They could place a condition of a minimum of 15 feet from boundary along the north side. George suggests a fence too. Mr. Gallagher said it’s heavily wooded and it would be difficult to put fence. In favor: none. Opposed: Jennifer Cote, asked if the previous opposition is still on record and the Board said yes. In 2005 she was told the lot is unbuildable and the lot slopes down and she has concerns
with runoff and drainage. She is not on the condo board but it’s both their and the other duplexes to maintain road and it would be fair if they contributed. George said he spoke to Mr. Larson and he granted ROW to condos and they are responsible. Opposed: William Maher, 204 Park Place lives across in building 1. Most of his questions were answered but water erosion control. He stated nothing definite has been discussed about trees. Joe suggests the condo association have meeting. Atty. Gay suggest a 15 foot no touch zone and they will also try to keep as many trees as possible. The property drains to south to cemetery and the septic is in front. Atty. Gay stated the hardship is the lot is pre-existing lot which abuts Raynham and borders a cemetery. Joe stated 95% of users of the road are in Raynham. Wayne stated the easement clearly stated it a shared responsibility but could have been tightened up. The lot
is of concern and he would hope the 15 foot no cut zone would be defined and the developer will attempt to keep as many trees as possible. Mike asked if they could keep it as rural as possible.
Motion to Grant with the following condition:
- Fifteen foot (15) No Cut Zone along the property lines abutting the condominiums. The developer will act in good faith and save as many trees as they can to preserve the aesthetics.
Vote: Moniz, Staples, Berube….Yes
Amaral, Vieira…….No
Petition Denied.
Case #3294 Riverview Realty Trust 118-120 Summer St.
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for the modification of a pre-existing non-conforming business use by allowing general office, service use, and retail in the existing multi-tenant building .
For the Petitioner: Atty. Mathew Costa, P.O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Atty. Costa explains how the petitioner wishes to re-locate a retail use in the existing vacant space formerly occupied by Future Graphics. The site currently has a chiropractor, massager therapist and now wishes to add retail use. Atty. Costa states this approval will legalize the existing uses. Joe asked why do they need zoning approval? Atty. Costa explains the site was the former Future Graphics, a printing place, and the City Planner said it was not the same use. The site was subject to a variance for a printing company and is located in the Urban Residential District. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., and Conservation Commission into the record. No one appearing in favor or opposed.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Amaral, Staples, Vieira........ …Yes
Petition Granted
Case #3295 Reinhart Food Services 225 John Hancock Rd.
For: A Variance from Section 7.5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for a second moment style directional sign with logo totaling 40 square feet.
For the Petitioner: Bill Gavigan, Poyant Signs, 125 Samuel Barnet Blvd., New Bedford, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Mr. Gavigan stated they are here tonight requesting the addition of a second sign to direct drivers to the site. There is currently a smaller sign there now and it needs to be bigger. The sign is currently located in back of a rock and a truck actually hit the rock. They are here because they need the logo on the sign. Chairman Ackerman asked if they were going to put Agar on logo because that is what it used to be? No, they kept the name for 18 months due to contractural but now they can’t. They are going to place the sign about 20 feet back.
Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., and Conservation Commission into the record. No one appearing in favor or opposed.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Amaral, Staples, Vieira........ …Yes
Petition Granted
Meeting adjourned at 8:06 PM
| 
