CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Peter Wasylow, Wayne Berube, Gill Enos, Troy Medeiros, John Joyce and Joseph Amaral.
Meeting opens at 6:45 PM.
Peter made motion to accept minutes of December 11, 2008 seconded by Wayne . All in favor.
Meeting opens at 6:50 PM.
Election of Officers: Chairman and Clerk
Peter made motion to keep Dennis Ackerman as Chairman, seconded by Joe.
Peter made motion to close nomination, seconded by Joe.
Dennis Ackerman was elected as Chairman, Dennis abstains from voting.
Wayne nominates Peter Wasylow for Clerk, seconded by Joe.
Wayne made motion to close nominations, seconded by Joe.
Peter Wasylow was unanimously elected as Clerk.
Chairman Ackerman explains how the ZBA public hearing works. He stated he allows the petitioner to present their case and then asks for anyone in favor or anyone in opposition. Then the petitioner is allowed to respond to the opposition or in favor. We don’t go back to the opposition and in favor again. The ZBA then asks questions and votes.
Cont’d. Case # 2939 Dbaib 272 Winthrop St. Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the change of use from residential to commercial without having the required 150 feet of frontage (having 115 feet)
Atty. Gay submitted letter requesting to withdraw petition. Wayne stated he would allow withdraw but WITH prejudice. He started the under Mass. Gen. Laws. Chapter 40A Section 16 once a public hearing is opened and you go through the motions you can allow withdrawal with or without prejudice. Wayne stated this petitioner has been asked by the City and the ZBA to clean up his property and he has made no effort to do so. What does that say to the public, and now he just wants to withdraw and maybe come back with another proposal?
John stated in recent weeks, about 2 weeks ago the Police were called because this petitioner was parking vehicles at the nearby Friendly’s parking lot without permission. Atty. Gay stated this Board has never allowed a petition to be withdrawn with prejudice. Wayne stated the court looks at it like a denial and they would have to go to P.B. for Repetitive Petition and if the P.B. thinks there was a substantial change they can come back to ZBA. Wayne stated the petitioner has total disregard for the City department and the rules. Wayne stated he will not reward the petitioner by allowing to withdraw without prejudice and come back? It was noted Joe needs to excuse himself, Troy Medeiros will be voting on this. Wayne stated the Chapter 40A give the discretion to withdraw without or with
prejudice. John stated that it’s true all the years he has been here there has never been a case allowed to withdraw with Prejudice. He stated should send statement to the petitioner that he is thumbing his nose at the rules. Troy asked Atty. Gay for an explanation? Attty. Gay stated that this Board is not the enforcement Board they are the permitting Board. Atty. Gay stated the Board can vote either way but cautions them. Wayne stated we are not enforcing anything we are voting on whether to allow him to withdraw with or without prejudice. He has continued asked for continuances and was asked to clean up property and he hasn’t. Wayne stated that they can come up with some evidence to go to the P.B. and if the Board thinks they deserve a right to come back to ZBA they will vote that way. Wayne stated Section 40A Section 16 give the ZBA the right to vote, it has been advertised. John stated there might not have been a full
presentation but there was an application filed with us.
Motion made and seconded to allow withdrawal with Prejudice.
Vote: Berube, Enos, Ackerman, Medeiros……Yes
Wasylow …………………………………………..No
Motion passes – Petition withdrew WITH PREJUDICE.
Case # 2899 Taunton Service Center 48 Broadway
A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 to allow a 4 car auto sales use in conjunction with a gasoline filling station with repair & retail.
Atty. David Gay requesting to withdraw petition. He stated they have looked at the site and decided not to persue this at this time.
Motion made and seconded to allow petition to be withdrawn.
Vote: Medeiros, Joyce, Enos, Wasylow, Ackerman………………….Yes
Petition withdrawn.
Case # 2951 Wells 34 ½ Briggs St.
A Variance from 6.2, 6.25 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 6 lots having no frontage (instead of 100’) no lot width (instead of 100‘) and a shape factor of 38 for Lot 4 (instead of 35) Access is via the existing 20 foot wide driveway.
For the Petitioner: Atty. Michael Strojny, 1470 New State Highway, #19, Raynham, Ma.
Paul Patneaude, P. E., 198 Crane Ave. South, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Jeff Henriques, 30 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Lewis Rose, 24 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Robert Lane, 60 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Rob Dennen, 40 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Jason Motta, 26 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Mary Ann McNeil, 52 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Joseph Costa, 23 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
James Sauro, 28 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Patti Kenyon, 409 Somerset Ave., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: Stuart Clark, P. E., 124 Padelford St., Berkley, Ma.
Cheryl Perry, 13 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
Fred Hovestadt, 62 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Patti Kenyon, 409 Somerset Ave., Taunton, Ma.
James & Lila Medeiros, 24 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
Mary Ann Malo, 20 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Doreen Kane, 19 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
John Reis, 36-38 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Petition signed by 60 residents opposed.
Wayne Berube discloses that he represented Mr. & Mrs. DaCosta during the foreclosure process and has to recuses himself.
Joseph Amaral discloses that he has relative who is an abutter, so he recuses himself.
Atty. Strojny stated his client filed an application with the ZBA for the creation of 6 separate lots with duplexes located on each lot. Atty. Strojny stated Mr. Wells has met with a majority of the neighbors and they are in favor. The lots will be serviced by water & sewer. Atty. Strojny stated there is an emergency turnaround for fire apparatus. The property is 4 ½ acres is a district and on the new plans submitted this evening shows 2 acres not being built on due to wetlands. Atty. Strojny stated all the proposed home will be outside the wetlands. Gill asked where the hardship that’s related to the shape & size of the lot? Atty. Strojny stated there is a financial hardship if the owner were unable to develop and sell. He purchased the 2 family at a foreclosure and to make it
feasible they have to have proposal. Gill asked how much did he purchase the property for? Atty. Strojny stated the deed was included with the application. It was noted the purchase price was $121,000 for the 2-family. Atty. Strojny stated the amount of money that needs to be put into the renovations warrants the variance. Chairman Ackerman stated that he wasn’t in favor of original proposal with duplexes and he is glad the applicant is working with the neighbors, showing good faith. He thought it was ludachrist at the time to put all those duplexes in back, now some land is going to be conveyed to abutters. Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Ave. South stated the hardship is directly related to the size and
shape of the lot. The property consists of 4.5 acres with 20 feet of frontage. All the proposed lots meet the 15,000 sq. ft. min. lot size but cannot meet the
frontage or lot width requirement. There is wetlands and river to the west and there is no other way to access the property. In favor: Jeff Henriques, 30 Briggs St., stated he’s in favor because the property has been vacant for a couple of years now it’s an eyesore. He would be in favor a decent looking homes back there. In Favor: Lewis Rose, 24 Briggs St.,has been there for 40 years and it was once a farm, with all kinds of animals. He stated it would increase the value of our homes with new houses in the area, and in his opinion, would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. In favor: Robert Lane, 66 Briggs St. stated there isn’t going to be any houses directly in back of his property but he knows developer and he thinks he to be of a honest guy and he is in favor of what he was
told by Mr. Wells. He made concession and agreed to convey land if developer doesn’t follows thru then he will lose is trust. He is in agreement with new plan. Troy asked Mr. Lane if he has any doubt that the property would be sold? Mr. Lane answers he doesn’t believe that to be so and if it was he would lost his trust. In favor: Rob Dennen, 40 Briggs St., stated he likes new plan showing changes from duplex to single family homes. He stated he would be most affected by it. Troy asked if he was happy and satisfied? Mr. Dennen answers yes, and he would like to see the drainage and perhaps some fencing? Mr. Dennen stated Mr. Wells has promised some things to neighbors? Troy asked what things? Mr. Dennen stated reducing it to 4 single family, fencing, and fixing drainage. In favor: Jason Motta, 26 Briggs St., stated the original plans affected is lot but new plans don’t affect him
now. He did not like duplexes but now he’s ok with new proposal. In favor: Mary Ann McNeil, 52 Briggs St. along with her Mother, Doris Roderick, 52 Briggs St. are in favor. She is ok with new plans along with proposed fencing and water problem solution. She stated there is an adequate turnaround behind her house. Mike Bledesdoe, 34 Briggs St., along with his mother, Dorothy Smith, stated they were opposed to duplex but are OK with new plans as long as he complies with it. He stated he was told there would be fencing. He stated there is a garage right about 10 feet from property line? It was noted that a paved driveway would be better than the existing dirt one and some fencing. In favor: Joseph Costa, 23 Knight St., also was against duplex but is ok with new plan. He stated he would like to keep it in it’s natural state but he knows something is bound to go there. He stated applicant is proposing to
convey some property to abutters which is better for some people. He stated there is a pond at the end of his neighbor’s property. OPPOSED: Stuart Clark, P.E., 124 Padelford St., Berkley, Ma. he presented petition signed by approx. 66 people in opposition. It was noted there are names on petition in opposed who now are in favor of NEW plans. Mr. Clark suggested the new plans be re-circulated to city department for comments since the plans have changed. He read letter of opposition into record. He stated this is an illegal subdivision, no sidewalk, no drainage? Chairman Ackerman stated they can put conditions on approval like they have in the past when they have
approved a common driveway for a couple of houses. They will consider all the facts. Troy asked Mr. Clark if he saw new plan? Mr. Clark stated yes just this evening. Letters from the City Planner, Fire Dept., Conservation Commission, B.O.H. were read into the record. Opposed: James Medeiros, 24 Knight stated he is concerned with drainage the possible additional runoff? It was told they have to comply with what the City Engineer recommends. It was asked if the drainage problem was solved would he be opposed still? Mr. Medeiros answers yes. Mr. Clark wanted to make a few more stated but was declined by the Chairman. Chairman Ackerman the policy is not to go back and forth and he already spoke. Opposed: Lila Medeiros, 24 Knight St., stated there is pond back there with fish.
She submits pictures of flooding. She has 9 acres and there is a large wetland back there. Opposed: Mary Ann Malo, 20 Briggs St., stated her greatest concern is houses 12 thru 20 and there is running spring water behind those houses? Opposed: Doreen Kane, 19 Knight St. states she has 2 pumps running all winter long and she is very concerned and opposed to the 6 houses. She stated there are plenty of houses for sale in Taunton. She did stated if the water problem is solved then is would not be opposed. Opposed: John Reis, 36-38 Briggs St., is concerned with sewerage, height restrictions. He doesn’t want to see skyscrapers in the back. He has concerns with privacy and water issues. Opposed: Cheryl Perry, 13 Knight St., stated the new plan is better but wanted all to know they used to skate on pond out there. She had to go to conservation for her pool and the driveway is very narrow.
But her major concern is water. Opposed: Fred Hoverstadt, 62 Briggs St., stated no one has been to his house to speak to him or his wife and she is always home? He is opposed if houses are in back of him. He hasn’t see the plans yet? Atty. Strojny stated the water issues he will refer to the engineer to comment. He presented letters from Patti Kenyon, 409 Somerset Ave. and James Sauro, 28 Briggs St. in support. Troy asked Atty. Strojny about the new plans and asked if they needed to go back to city department for comments? Atty. Strojny answers, in his opinion, no because the driveway hasn’t changed. Troy asked when the plans were changed? Atty. Strojny answers after meeting with neighbors on Feb. 9, 2009. Gill asked who will be responsible for the maintenance of the one driveway providing access to 5 houses? Atty. Strojny there would be a homeowner’s association and they would be. The
document would be made up prior to building and with a minimum of 30 years. They would be selling to 5 different people and they would need to be made aware of the maintenance of driveway, plowing, sealing. Etc. Troy stated he thought this was a good idea but since they have changed plans he thinks the city departments should review new plans. He stated he thought, in his opinion, the Attorney representing client is making things up and going along with things that we are suggesting. Troy stated if he were to vote on this tonight he would be voting NO. Several Board members agreed and suggested continuance and having more information submitted. How are they going to deal with visitor parking, water flow, proposed fencing. Can they have full basements with the water table? Troy stated he
didn’t’ want the houses to be like “Hart St” skyscrapers. John agreed Hart Street houses are too high. Paul stated if they wanted full basements they would have to be elevated. Paul stated they would have to conduct soil tests which is not normally done at this step in the process. He stated they would supply all that information to the Planning Board. Paul stated we will not make it any worse that what is there now. Troy again stated the presentation was being made up as we go along. Paul stated we will discuss the drainage issues with the applicant. Chairman Ackerman stated the Board can ask for anything. It was suggesting giving them option of continue until March or April. Attorney Strojny stated he will be out of the state for March
so he asks for April. It was stated the April meeting will be on April 9th and it’s a Jewish Holiday so Dennis might not be present.
Motion made and seconded Grant continuance until April 9, 2009
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Medeiros, Joyce, Ackerman……….Yes
Petition continued to April 9, 2009
Troy Medeiros excused from meeting at 8:24 PM.
Cont’d. Case # 2944 Frizado 585 County St.
Hearing held on December 10, 2008 and cont’d. February 12, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 5.2 of the Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the continued use of a portion of the premises for minor automobile repairs and dismantling of automobiles that are beyond repair for transfer to a junk yard for disposal (Case #2944) .
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Atty. Gay stated he presented case in December and the Board asked for legal opinion from the City Solicitor to see whether or not a Class III License is required? Atty. Gay did some research and he came to the opinion this type of business does not require Class III. However; the City Solicitor stated in his letter a Class III is required. Atty. Gay stated if we need it then we will get it. However; he did point out that the City Planner recommends not having Class III to restrict the business. Chairman Ackerman stated he petitioner runs a nice good business and knows he has been there years. He stated he just doesn’t want him to get in trouble. Atty. Gay they will apply for Class III as instructed by the City Solicitor. Wayne stated we requested a legal opinion from the City
Solicitor to see if they need Class III? Since we did request an opinion we should take his advice. There was some discussion in regards to giving the petitioner time to apply for one, there may be waiting period?
Peter started he didn’t want to hurt the guy or hold him up? More discussion and it was suggested giving him 18 months to secure license because it wasn’t known if there were any Class III licenses available?
Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following condition:
1. Allow the continued operation of the business BUT the petitioner is required to secure a Class III license within the next 18 months.
Vote: Ackerman, Wasylow, Enos, Amaral, Berube..………..Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2947 Mello Realty LLC 232 Broadway
A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the addition of a drive-thru window and order board facilities for a newly constructed Dunkin Donuts restaurant.
Letter requesting a continuance until April meeting.
Motion made and seconded to grant continuance.
Vote: Ackerman, Wasylow, Enos, Amaral, Berube…….Yes
Petition continued until April 9, 2009
Case #2948 Doran 106 Cranesbill Rd.
For : A Variance from Section 6.3 to allow a 4 foot rear setback instead of 20 feet for the existing shed.
For the Petitioner: Tara Doran, 106 Cranesbill Rd., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Mrs. Doran stated the already has shed on her property and she was unaware that a permit was required. She states all her neighbors have shed and she put a nice one. Unfortunately due to the topography of her property and an easement the placement of the shed is limited. She was informed by the Z.E.O. that a permit was required and now she doesn’t meet the setback requirement. No one appearing in favor or against petition. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept., Water Dept. and Conservation Commission were read into the record. She was informed that the shed would require a filing with Conservation
Commission due to it’s proximity to the wetlands. Mrs. Doran will contact office for more information regarding this.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Berube, Amaral, Ackerman….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2949 Watson 1171 Glebe St.
A Special Permit from Section 7.9 and a Variance from Section 7.9 #4 & 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory dwelling unit having 1,900 sq. ft (850 sq. ft. allowed) and over the 30% habitable floor area of the building and within 5 years of a building permit.
For the Petitioner: William Watson, Jr. 1171 Glebe St., Taunton, Ma. speaking for his father.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Mr. Watson presented letter giving him permission to speak on behalf of his father who is away. Mr. Watson stated they are requesting permission to put an actual kitchen in the existing house which will be used by his sister. Mr. Watson states he lives with his Dad and his Mother passed away a year ago and now his Father wants is children living with him. The house is already constructed and nothing will change with the exception of the great room being converted to an actual “Kitchen” for his sister & her family. Letter from the Fire Dept., Water Dept., Conservation Commission, City Planner and B.O.H. were read into the record. John asked how big the accessory dwelling unit is? Mr. Watson answers 1,900 sq. ft. It was asked how big the main house is? He answers it’s 1,900 per
floor. The Board reminded Mr. Watson that this needs to be renewed every 5 years unless it not needed and then you revert back to a single family dwelling. Wayne asked about the entrance to the main floor? Mr. Watson answered the entrance is thru the main floor with stairs. He noted there are 3 egresses per floor. No one appearing in favor or in opposition.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Ackerman, Amaral, Berube,Wasylow, Enos …………….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2950 Scott Realty Group Trust 10 E. Britannia St.
For: A Variance from Section 7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the dwelling conversion of a single family dwelling to a 2-family dwelling having 8,712 sq. ft. (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) (See ZBA Case # 2848)
For the Petitioner: Atty. P. Burke Fountain, 111 Dean St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Atty. Fountain presented photos of the property to the Board. The property has an older existing dwelling located on it. The petitioner purchased it thru a foreclosure. The property is set up as a two-family but isn’t with the City. However; the previous petitioner received ZBA approval in Case # 2848 but never exercised the variance and never recorded decision or got building permit. Atty. Fountain stated they are just asking to re-instate the variance that was previously granted. There will be no changes from previous request. Unfortunately the previous owner lost it to foreclosure. Letters from the City Planner, Water, Conservation Commission, Fire Dept. and B.O.H. were read into the record. No one appearing in favor or opposition.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Berube, Amaral, Ackerman….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2952 13 Cape Road The Titanium Group LLC
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 & 7.5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a gasoline dispensing pumps with a canopy having a 6 inch (1/2 foot) front yard setback (instead of 30 feet) and the pump island having a 10 foot front yard setback (instead of 30 feet) and to allow a second pylon sign (120 sq. ft proposed) listing gasoline sales and prices.
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Avenue South, Taunton, Ma.
Ronen Drory, 463 Sherman St., Canton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Atty. Gay stated the property has 165 feet of frontage on Cape Road which requires a minimum of 150 feet. The property is large that what’s required and right now there is an existing car wash. Currently the lot coverage is 25% and with the proposed canopy it will be 28.6% well under the 40% maximum allowed. The business is always kept clean and over the last year has suffered with the rain. They did a lot of improvements to the building and they wish to maximize their investment and are proposing to put gasoline pumps. The owner is not new to this type of business, he has been successfully operating one in Brockton, Ma. Atty. Gay stated the canopy and gasoline pump are close to roadway, but the actual distance from the “travel” way is about 10 feet. Atty. Gay stated there is plenty of room for
entering and exiting from the site. Atty. Gay explained the deliveries will be during off-hours so not to interfere with customers. He stated they will need to go to the Conservation Commission because the River is in the back. They will need to go to the DIRB for the storage permit approval. Atty. Gay stated there was a sign there but has been taken down. They were proposing to put back up? Chairman Ackerman stated he would rather not see the sign? Atty. Gay stated they really don’t need it they need the gasoline pumps more? After some consideration Atty. Gay withdrew his request for the additional sign. Paul stated the proposed canopy is a great distance from the traveled way, about 10- 12 feet away. Chairman Ackerman asked what the height is to ensure the trucks won’t hit it? Paul answers the canopy is 15 feet high and the big trucks should be ok. It was noted there was once a gasoline
station here some time ago, the pads were taken out. Letters from the B.O.H., Fire Dept., Conservation Commission, Water Dept. and City Planner were read into the record. It was asked if Diesel would be offered? Mr. Ronen Drory, 463 Sherman St., Canton, Ma. answers yes but no 18 wheelers would use this site. John asked if they absolutely needed 2 islands? Atty. Gay answers yes in order to do business right. John was concerned with the site-line because he knows it’s busy? Paul pointed out the pump island is about 11 feet from the Rte. 44 and the oval area on the plans is a planting area. John was satisfied with the room and site distance. He just wanted to ensure safety. It was noted the lights down the road do help with the traffic. Chairman Ackerman stated he has seen the other site in Brockton and is very clean.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Amended – No additional pylon sign:
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Berube, Amaral, Ackerman….Yes
Petition Granted:
OTHER BUSINESS: – Powhattan Estates - Request for Street Acceptance – The Municipal council has requested a recommendation from the ZBA for public hearing on Street Acceptance.
Michael Malloch, and Joe Malloch, were invited into the enclosure. The hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2009 with the Municipal Council. Mike stated everything has been completed. Chairman Ackerman stated the City Solicitor submitted letter stating everything is in compliance with the Comp. Permit. Chairman Ackerman read e-mail from Atty. Bobrowski stated he has reviewed audit and on that basis can recommend the ZBA to accept streets.
Peter made motion to forward a positive recommendation for street acceptance for Powhattan Estates Comp. Permit, seconded by Joe. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM.
50
| 
