CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Berube, Amaral, Enos, Wasylow and Joyce.
Meeting called to order at 6:51 pm
Gill made motion to accept July 30, 2009 minutes, seconded by Peter. All in favor.
Chairman Ackerman at this time asked for a moment of silence in observance of 9-11 for all lost and all the men and woman fighting for our freedom.
Chairman Ackerman explained how the meeting is run. The petitioner makes their presentation and then the opposition or in favor may speak. Then it goes back to the petitioner to allow response. The opposition doesn’t have the opportunity to speak again. The board will either vote or continue case.
CONT’ CASE # 2858 – Jackson – Requesting an extension – for property at 50 South St. Chairman Ackerman read letter from the City Planner informing them they could grant continuance. Wayne stated the Board voted to request an opinion from the City Solicitor. He asked if there was a letter sent to the City Solicitor. The Secretary answers no because the City Planner responded. Joe Jackson was invited into the enclosure. He stated due to the economy, the market, he wishes to wait to do renovations. Wayne asked if he requesting an extension because of the economy because he has 2 years already. Mr. Jackson answers he has invested a lot of money already. John stated it’s an honest request. Peter had issues with the Board
being tied down to something. Wayne stated, in his opinion, two years is too long and he suggests one year extension.
Peter made motion to granted one-year extension, seconded by Wayne, All in favor.
One –Year Extension Granted:
CASE # 2934 – Requesting a 6-month extension – for property located at Herbert Street.
Atty. Gay stated they are requesting a 6-month extension due to the Form A, Roadway Improvement Plan and Conservation filings.
Gill made motion to granted 6-month extension, seconded by Wayne. All in favor.
6-Month Extension Granted:
Page 2 of 11 – ZBA Minutes – 9-10-09
Case #2977 Costa 560 Somerset Ave.
Hearing held on September 10, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the City of Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow Hair/Nails/Tanning Salon in an Industrial District.
For the Petitioner: Cheryl Costa, 92 North Crane Ave., Taunton, Ma.
William Gray, 92 North Crane Ave., Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: Ed Simpson, 30 Fifth St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: None
Ms. Costa stated she owns A Cut Above Hair salon located on One Lawton Street of which she rents from her Dad. She just purchased this property at auction and wishes to renovate it for a hair salon. Chairman Ackerman asked if she is going to comply with all sign rules and she answered yes. It was stated the road will be completed soon. Hours of Operation are to stay the same as are: Tuesday & Thursday, 8:30 AM – 8:00 PM, Wed. & Friday 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM and Saturday 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM. Closed on Sunday & Monday. She stated the parking is paved and she will stripe. It was asked if there is City Water & Sewer and Ms. Costa answers yes. In favor: Ed Simpson, 30 Fifth St., owns house right next door and welcomes the change to hair salon. It would be better than the
previous use and it would be the best thing for the neighborhood. Letters from the Water Dept., City Planner, Conservation Commission and Fire Dept. were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:
Hrs. of Operation: Tuesday & Thursday: 8:30 A.M. – 8:00 P.M., Wednesday & Friday: 8:30 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Saturday 8:00A.M. – 4:00 P.M., Closed Sunday & Monday.
VOTE: Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Ackerman, Enos………….…………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2978 Lonergan Richmond St.
Hearing held on September 10, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the City of Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 2 -family in an Industrial District.
For the Petitioner: Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Ave., Taunton, Ma.
Deborah Lonergan, 15 Gerald Ave., Randolph, Ma.
In Favor: Corinne Werra, 60 Puffin Way, E. Taunton, Ma.
Kim Werr, 51 Hummingbird Lane, E. Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: Scott Brouillard, 516 Richmond St., E. Taunton, Ma.
Paul Farinha, 526 Richmond St., E. Taunton, Ma.
Paul stated this lot has previously been approved by ZBA for 3 lots and the lot is located both in the Rural Residential & Industrial District. Mrs. Lonergan stated she and her husband live in Randolph, Ma. for the past 13 years and they have son, Justin who has some difficulties and is currently on an IEP wit the Randolph Schools. She stated she has found the schools and town have declined over the years and have decided to move. They looked into Taunton and found lot on Richmond Street and purchased property last year. They would like to keep their family together because they she has mental challenged sister who she will be taking care of when her parents are unable to. They are proposing to construct a two-family to accommodate their families needs while giving them their own space. Chairman Ackerman stated as
a grandparent of a mentally challenged child he can relate to her letter. Wane asked about the lot. Paul states this is a wooded lot and will have long driveway. In favor: Corrine Werra, 60 Puffin Way, E. Taunton, Ma submit letter in favor. Kim Werr, 51 Hummingbird Lane, E. Taunton, Ma. submits letter in favor. Opposition: Scott Brouillard, 516 Richmond St. stated he would be the direct abutter and he is not opposed to a single family with in-law but doesn’t want a 2-family. He stated his in-laws live at 526 Richmond St. and they have lived their a long time. Paul Farinha, 526 Richmond St. stated he is concerned with 2-family and would rather see an in-law because it restricts who can live there. The board asked why they did not apply for accessory because this is prime example of one. Paul stated at the suggested of the City Planner, because both would require ZBA approval a 2family doesn’t’
have to be renewed every 5 years and there is no size restriction. He stated they are proposing a 1,200 sq. ft. addition. Wayne stated the Board vote and allow a change because they asked for a 2 family. The Secretary informed the Board that they would have to re-file and re-advertise because they need a variance for the size and building it within 5 years. They will need to put another legal ad in paper.
Motion made and seconded to continue and allow petitioner to request an accessory dwelling unit.
VOTE: Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Ackerman, Enos………….…………...Yes
Petition continued:
In Favor: Corinne Werra, 60 Puffin Way, E. Taunton, Ma.
Kim Werr, 51 Hummingbird Lane, E. Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: Scott Brouillard, 516 Richmond St., E. Taunton, Ma.
Paul Farinha, 526 Richmond St., E. Taunton, Ma.
Paul stated this lot has previously been approved by ZBA for 3 lots and the lot is located both in the Rural Residential & Industrial District. Mrs. Lonergan stated she and her husband live in Randolph, Ma. for the past 13 years and they have son, Justin who has some difficulties and is currently on an IEP wit the Randolph Schools. She stated she has
found the schools and town have declined over the years and have decided to move. They looked into Taunton and found lot on Richmond Street and purchased property last year. They would like to keep their family together because they she has mental challenged sister who she will be taking care of when her parents are unable to. They are proposing to construct a two-family to accommodate their families needs while giving them their own space. Chairman Ackerman stated as a grandparent of a mentally challenged child he can relate to her letter.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented with the following condition:
1. Submit copy of Purchase & Sales Agreement.
VOTE: Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Ackerman, Enos………….…………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2979 Crausman 725 Myles Standish Blvd.
Hearing held on September 10, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the City of Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow Medical Office use in an Industrial District.
For the Petitioner: Atty. Thomas Percy, 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: Letter from Taunton Development Corp., Louis Ricciardi, President & Edward Roster, Clerk.
Opposition: None
Atty. Percy stated that they are requesting to put a medical office in an Industrial District. Dr. Crausman wishes to re-locate from his current location at North woods Medical Center. Atty. Percy stated the office use won’t have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. He stated there is a 400 foot buffer due to a well and there is 750 feet away from any apparent use next door. Gill asked if the entrance was shared with current building on property? Atty. Percy stated the building isn’t constructed yet. Atty. Percy stated yes they will enter next to common driveway. There is no access from Bay Street. Letters from the Conservation Commission, Fire Dept., City Planner and Water Dept. were read into the record. Wayne asked if they would be purchasing the property from TDC?
Atty. Percy stated yes they have P&S with TDC. Wayne asked if he enclosed a copy and Atty. Percy answers no. Wayne asked if they could submit copy to the ZBA Office.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented with the following condition:
1. Submit copy of Purchase & Sales Agreement.
VOTE: Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Ackerman, Enos………….…………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2980 SmartCo Inc. 254 Winthrop St.
Hearing held on September 10, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the City of Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow Office Use in an Urban Residential District.
For the Petitioner: Atty. William Rounds, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma.
Brian Clough, 720 Norton Ave., Taunton, Ma.
Phil Lustbader, c/o 200 Myles Standish Blvd., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: William Antine, 88 Davenport Terrace, Taunton, Ma.
Walter & Anne Scholy, 81 Davenport Terrace, Taunton, Ma.
Marguerite Machado, 70 Davenport Terrace, Taunton, Ma.
Israel Helfand, 61 Davenport Terrace, Taunton, Ma.
Alfred Smith, 60 Davenport Terrace, Taunton, Ma.
Rosamond Helfand, 60 Davenport Terrace, Taunton, Ma.
Violet LeMar, 252 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma.
Sharon Lunsford, 261 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma.
Joseph, Jenna & Judith Lach, 263 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma
Atty. Rounds stated they are proposing offices in an Urban Residential District. The business is currently leasing space in the Industrial Park. The property has been on the market for more than one year and there has been no interest for residential use. There are a number of other property in the neighborhood, just a little over 100 feet that are being used for offices/ medical dental offices. Atty. Rounds stated the business is an internet based which deals with car dealers and their parts inventory. They keep track of when parts needs replacing and inventory. The hours of operation are Monday –Friday 8:30 M – 6:00PM.. There are no parts stored on the property. Atty. Rounds states the property has about 218 feet of frontage (2 lots combined) and the property
has a house and carriage house located in the rear of the property. The plans shows as one large lot. There will be no exterior changes and they have provided parking for 14 cars. Atty.
Rounds states the hardship is the lot and no interest in a residence use. There are several other houses that have been converted to offices. Chairman Ackerman stated he received many calls inquiring about what type of business it was. Brian Klugh, 720 Norton Ave. and Phil Ludbaster, were invited to speak. Mr. Klugh stated he and his wife and Mr. Ludbaster are the only owners. Chairman Ackerman asked about perhaps erecting fencing to the rear of property for Davenport Terrace residents. Mr. Klugh stated he wouldn’t have a problem with that and it was asked about landscaping? Mr. Klugh answers they don’t intend on clearing any trees. Chairman Ackerman was trying to protect neighbors. Mr. Klugh stated that their business hours are 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM and he has
only has one client come to his place in all the years he ahs been in business. It was asked if they placed that as a condition would they have a problem with it? Mr. Klugh didn’t have a problem with that. Wayne asked about the carriage house? Atty. Round stated they have no intention on using that, just for storage only. Mr. Klugh stated it’s more like a barn than a carriage house. Wayne asked if the whole house will be used as offices? Mr. Klugh answers yes they have 3-9 employees and have room to grow at this site. Atty. Rounds stated they have combined the 2 lots and it will be sold as one so it will lose it’s independent status. Opposition: Jen Lach, 263 Winthrop Street submitted petition with 14 signatures in opposition. She wishes the residential status stays. She wants to preserve the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood is damaged by all the offices. Little by little each
house is being changed to offices. Joseph Lach, 263 Winthrop St., stated the historic building should be kept residential. The property can be sold and it would be approved for offices. They have no control over how big of an office goes in there. Opposed: Violet Lemaire, 252 Winthrop Street stated she is concerned with the cars exhausts and her 2 children and her animals. Atty. Rounds states there was no interest in residential use. He stated there could be a more intense business that could go in there. He stated the existing single family could be converted to a 3 family and the vacant lot could have duplex on it and more if granted relief. He said there could potentially be 5 families with 10 vehicles at the property. The proposed office use will employ 9 people and the lot is going to stay empty. Atty. Rounds stated the Board has to weigh all the differences. Wayne asked if there would be any signs or
customers coming to the site? Atty. Rounds answers no, there will be no signs, no customer and not even FedEx deliveries. Atty. Rounds stated this property is only 130 feet away from the start of Highway Business District and there are a lot of mixes uses in the area. There are several residences with offices. Peter asks the opposition what would they rather have there? Ms. Lach answers she would rather have a single family house. John interrupted and stated the Attorney’s offered the extreme alternative and now the line of questioning sounds “threatening”. Peter stated he has a right to ask the question. Ms. Lech stated that this is a family neighborhood and this property would be perfect location for an “extended” family to reside. Joe looked at the
property and his concern was the proposed parking makes it look like a business
and not a residence. Atty. Rounds stated they have some wetlands in the rear of property and they are trying to stay away from them. There is a “water garden” on the property
and they intend on the least impact on the wetlands. They have a horseshoe driveway and the proposed planning is per the City Planner. Joe suggested reducing the parking to 11 and eliminate 4 spaces. Chairman Ackerman stated he’s torn and this will be a hard decision for him. Atty. Round stated the only change of use and the parking. There will be no exterior changes to the building. He stated it would be a bigger of an impact if they cleared the lot. Chairman Ackerman suggested putting up 6 foot white vinyl fencing around property. Mr. Clough stated he ha son in Coyle and he coaches in the City and he’s not going anywhere. He stated he we have 9 employees and there could possibly be one more and if for some unknown reason they get bigger they will outgrow building. Atty.
Rounds stated the office use is low impact and because of that they might be not required to put elevator. John stated after hearing the testimony why did they pick this particular location, it’s a big purchase? Mr. Clough answers they have been looking for 2 years and this is the best deal because it’s been on the market form some time. He provides free snack bar to his employees so there is no need for them to leave therefore resulting in less traffic. He stated the house is a well built old Victorian structure and he lives 3 miles away. Wayne asked about his long range plans at the site? Mr. Clough answers he isn’t going anywhere, his family is here and he has been in business for 12 years and his house is only 3 miles away. Opposed: Petition signed by Davenport Terrance and Winthrop Street residents. Letters from the Conservation Commission, Water Dept., Fire Dept. and City Planner were read
into the record. John agreed with neighbor that the neighborhood is being turned into mixed use. He stated this property is in close proximity to Highland Street and Winthrop Street intersection along with it being a short cut to Fairview Avenue. He stated the intensity appears to be low the special permit goes with the property and it could create a nightmare if a bigger company goes in. Wayne stated, after hearing all the testimony, he thinks this low impact discreet office use will be a positive for the neighborhood. He stated there could be a much more intense use and this will create additional tax revenue.
Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions:
1. No signs as presented at hearing.
2. Eliminate parking spaces 1-4 on plans.
3. Petitioner to discuss with Davenport residents what type of fencing they want.
VOTE: Berube, Amaral, Enos………….…………...Yes
Ackerman, Wasylow………………………..No
Case #2981 Pro-Home Inc. 40 Summer St.
Hearing held on September 10, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 of the City of Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use in an Urban Residential District by allowing 2 apartments with Office Use.
For the Petitioner: Atty. P. Burke Fountain, 111 Dean St., Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: J & C Realty Management, James P Feeney, P. O. Box 462, Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: None
Atty. Fountain stated this property has been the site of Coldwell Banker Hutchison Realty for quite some time. It originally was approved a variance in 1977 for office use and residences. Dr. Ruby was there just shy of 15 years and then Hutchison Realty went on first floor and converted one of the two apartments to offices. Pro-Home has a P&S to move in and re-instate the 2 affordable one bedroom apartments. There will be no changes to the exterior except the addition of the handicapped ramp. There will be small sign and no changes to the outside of the building. No one appearing in opposition. Letters from the City Planner, Water Dept., Conservation Commission and Fire Dept. were read into the record. It was asked if there was a P&S agreement. Atty. Fountains
says it run out but they have “handshake” agreement.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented with the following condition:
1. Submit copy of Purchase & Sales Agreement.
VOTE: Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Ackerman, Enos………….…………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2982 Cabral – Art’s International Bakery 390 Washington St. & 12 Jackson St. Hearing held on September 10, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance for the modification of 2 pre-existing non-conforming lots and a pre-existing non-conforming use by allowing
a re-configuration of the lots and allowing a drive-thru window at Art’s International Bakery and a Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for a sideline setback (12 Jackson Street) on premises situated on the westerly side of Washington Street and northerly side of Jackson Street, Taunton, Ma. and is known as 390 Washington Street and 12 Jackson Street, Taunton, Ma.
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Arthur Cabral, 68 Dunbar St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Ronald Bettencourt, 417 Washington St., Taunton, Ma.
David Seekell, 495 Bay St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: Rebecca Emond, 386 Washington St., Taunton, Ma.
Martin Powers, 19 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma
Cary Crossman, 10 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma
Timothy Maher, 396 Washington St., Taunton, Ma.
Jose & Maria Correia, 388 Washington St., Taunton, Ma.
Petition signed by 30 abutters
Atty. Gay states this petition has 2 parts. One is a Variance for a 3 foot sideline setback for the existing house located at 12 Jackson Street. They are proposing to re-build the bakery which was destroyed by fire and asking for relief for a drive-thru window. They are proposing a by-pass lane to provide room if someone wants to exit that way. So they are moving the lot line between the bakery property and the abutting house, which is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Cabral. Atty. Gay stated the special permit is for 2 pre-existing non-conforming uses and structures. Both lots have
been reconfigured to give more land on the bakery site. The new building for the bakery will be 260 sq. ft. smaller than what existed. The old bakery was of rectangular shape and they will be make it more square. They are proposing a drive-thru window to be competitive with other bakeries. A lot of customers come in and buy breads, cakes, etc. The drive-thru will not generate a lot of traffic but it will accommodate people who are there for just getting coffee or donut. They are proposing to eliminate customer parking on Jackson Street side and have it restricted to employee parking resulting in less people backing out onto Washington Street. They are moving the parking to Washington Street and have exit only from Jackson Street. They have also moved the door from the corner to the
middle of the building after meeting with the City Planner to try and encourage people to parking in the lot on Washington Street. Atty. Gay stated this will need to go thru the Departmental Site Plan Review process and may need a little tweaking. Atty. Gay stated there will be a little more sales counter in the center and a showroom to the
right for cakes. They are also proposing 10 bar stools to provide customers to sit and have cup of coffee. The owner, Mr. Cabral has been here since 1977 and he’s man dedicated to helping others. He has some difficulties in his life but hasn’t let that stand in his way. His main location is in Raynham, Ma. but has this site and one on Weir St. They have noticed a big drop in sales since the supermarkets now have bakeries. Even though he has been through some difficulties but his work ethic remains the same. Atty. Gay stated the drive –thru window will make traffic better, getting them out of there. Atty. Gay stated we can re-construct building without drive-thru but Mr. Cabral wishes to be competitive with other bakeries. Mr. Cabral owns house next door so he’s
able to re-configure lot lines to make by-pass lane. He stated in order to re-configure the lot lines to accommodate the drive-thru they need a 3 foot variance. Atty. Gay stated the Special Permit will not be substantially more detrimental that what is there. Atty. Gay argues that
the new parking lot located on the other side of the building will be a benefit to the area. He stated that Art’s International Bakery is a gem and good family run business. Chairman Ackerman asked who owns the single family house at 12 Jackson Street? Atty. Gay stated Mr. Cabral owns it and Mr. & Mrs. Cabral own the bakery property. Joe asked how many parking spaces are on that side? Atty. Gay answer about 5-6 cars. Joe asked if Mr. Cabral contacted the neighbors? Atty. Gay stated he went around but was informed someone went around prior to him with petition opposed. Atty. Gay stated his client heard rumors that he was selling to big chain and that is not true. He stated there is Dunkin Donuts on Rte. 138 and also on Rte. 44. Mr. Cabral wishes to
re-construct what was there. It was asked about seating inside? Atty. Gay stated they are proposing 10 stools along the window. Atty. Gay stated the stool will provide an opportunity to sit down with a quick of coffee. There will be no table or a large area. The hours of operation are the same which are: Weekdays 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM and Sunday 6:00 AM – noon. The drive-thru will be the same. He has always respected neighbors. Wayne stated he has been in the bakery many times and just wanted to ensure no loitering, no noised and trash. Mr. Cabral stated he has always kept the parking lot clean and will continue to do that. He will also police area and make sure there is no loitering. Joe asked if they could park on Washington Street and Attorney Gay answers yes, it’s legal. Joe asked realistically petitioner wants the drive-thru window with stool as part of the re-build of the bakery. John
asked if they don’t get drive-thru would they want the extra parking? Atty. Gay answers yes the parking only makes it an improved site. John asked if there was seating before? Atty. Gay answers no but Mr. Cabral stated he sells 60 lbs. of coffee a week with muffins so that will . They could reduce the number of stools to 6 if the Board wishes. It’s similar to White’s bakery where they have bakery and some stools for customer to grab a cup of coffee or eat muffin. Atty. Gay submits written note from David Seekell, 495 Bay Street thanking Mr. Cabral for letting their children stand in the bakery out of the cold. In favor: Ronald Bettencourt, 417 Washington Street spoke very highly of Mr. Cabral and his character. Ms. Kathy Rogers also spoke very highly of Mr. Cabral and was in favor. She stated Mr. Cabral is a man of his word and very considerate. He has helped several people. She herself has parked
to run in to get donut and the improved parking will be great. Opposition: Rebecca Emond, 386 Washington Street stated she’s opposed because of the terrible intersection, plus the fact that
there is a school bus stop right there. The proposed seating is too much and she has no opposition to him opening it the way it was but add the parking. Opposed: Martin Powers, stated the bakery has been there since 1970 and stated all the proposed changes benefit the owner and not the neighborhood. He stated it’s a bus stop and now they want to add more traffic to an already terrible intersection. Mr. Powers stated in 1977 Chairman Newfield of the ZBA stated in a previous decision restricted to no food being served. He asked if they will re-configure lot if drive-thru doesn’t go it? He asked how many cars can be stacked in the drive-thru line? He suggested putting sign “Right Turn Only” when exiting the drive-thru. These changes will
generate confusion to an already terrible intersection. He also suggested putting no parking on both sides of Washington Street. He stated he has no problem with Art’s Bakery but has issue with the drive-thru
and seating. Chairman Ackerman stated just because a prior ZBA restricted they have every right to come here for new approved. They could place conditions. Chairman Ackerman stated there was a police report and since 2002 there have been over 40 accidents at this intersection. He has real issue with the drive-thru. Opposed: Cary Crossman, 10 Jackson Street stated he is the direct abutter to the rear of the lot and he stated 5 employee parking spaces is not enough. He is 30 feet from where dumpster is being proposed. He stated he never talked to Mr. Cabral. He asked if there would be a speaker at 6:00 AM. He stated the previous use was not that much activity. He stated the Board needs to consider the neighbors. He stated Mr. Cabral hasn’t cut the brush
at 12 Jackson Street which is growing over fence onto his yard. He stated it’s rental property and he isn’t take care of it. Wayne asked before fire destroyed building did customers used to back out onto Jackson Street. It was pointed out the proposed new parking is a much better plan. Opposed: Timothy Maher, stated he has lived in his house for 5 years and he is in favor of the bakery being re-built. He is just concerned with the parking lot along his property and wondered if they could put some type of fencing. Atty. Gay asked Mr. Cabral and he agreed to put fencing. Wayne stated we can’t put condition on and Chairman Ackerman informed him they could. Opposed: letter from Jose & Maria Correia, 388 Washington Street submitted letter in opposition. A petition with approx. 30 signatures in opposition was submitted. The letter stated there has been numerous accidents at this dangerous
intersection. The values of the homes will decrease and they are also worried about a national chain going in. Atty. Gay stated there will be no speaker at the drive-thru and there will be fencing and they will reduce the number of stools to 6 if the board wishes. They have no problem moving dumpster and the drive-thru will eliminate the need for people to get out of cars, resulting in less door slamming. The intersection is about 60 feet from the intersection and the dumpster can be emptied between 10 – 2 p.m. John suggested moving entrance to encourage people to enter at the other end. Atty. Gay stated they have to put the handicapped ramp and parking. John stated this is not the best spot for drive-thru but doesn’t have a problem with the stools. He asked if Mr. Cabral met with neighbors? Atty. Gay stated he didn’t’ have a chance to before petition went around. It was noted there was just an
accident a couple of weeks ago where the Correia house was hit. Atty. Gay pointed out the bakery wasn’t even open due to the fire. Peter suggests moving entrance and putting “Right hand turn only” when exiting drive-thru. He also wondered why the school dept. would put bus stop at this bad
intersection? It was asked if the building was level? Mr. Cabral answers no, there is a couple of stairs. Chairman Ackerman looked at plans and tried to see if they could eliminate the ramp but there was no way. Atty. Gay stated the insurance company is encouraging him to re-construct. Atty. Gay stated you have to have one entrance that everyone can use per the ADA rules. Joe suggesting eliminating stairs. John suggested putting side entrance. Chairman Ackerman suggested eliminating middle. Joe did agree to put right turn only out of drive-thru. John stated he was voting no on the drive-thru but didn’t have any problem with rest of petition.
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented with the following conditions:
1. Lighting shall not illuminate onto neighboring properties.
2. Non-illumination sign must comply with the Sign Ordinance.
3. Dumpster to be re-located to the northeast corner of Lot 1.
4. Dumpster to be fenced in and must be emptied between the hours of 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM.
5. Erect a 6 foot stockade fencing along property I.D. 38-68 (Tim Maher)
6. Hours of Operation: Monday – Saturday 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM., Sunday, 6:00 AM – Noon.
7. Erect a 6 foot stockade fence along property line of Crossman (Property I.D. 38-344)
8. No more than 6 stools for seating.
9. Deliveries to be during off hours and restricted to straight trucks only.
10. Shrubbery to be planted in a way to force vehicles to make a right hand turn from the drive-thru exit. All shrubbery plantings on site to meet the DIRB requirements.
11. Eliminate set of stairs located in the middle and south side of the building.
12. Install “Right Turn Only” sign when exiting from drive-thru.
VOTE: Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Ackerman, ………….…………...Yes
Joyce …….………………………………………………………………No
Petition Granted:
OTHER BUSINESS:
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 PM
50
| 
