MINUTES
CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 11, 2012 at 5:30 PM
(meeting held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St., Taunton, Ma.)
Members Present were: Joseph Amaral, Estele Borges, Steven Vieira and Wayne Berube, and Chairman Dennis Ackerman.
Meeting opens at 5:30 pm.
Peter made motion to accept minutes of September 13, 2012 .
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 oppositions concerns. They don’t go back and forth.
Case # 2468c – MOD. Green Pine Town Homes 171 Hart St.
Hearing held on October 11, 2012
For: the Modification of a Comprehensive Permit resulting in the increase in number of units (49 to 72) , removal of impact fees and release of monies posted for 4 units and to allow a surety bond for future units.
For the Petitioner: Shawn Telsi, 171 Hart St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: Peter Andrade, 18 Briarwood Dr. Taunton, Ma
Roxanne Higginbotham, 111 Briarwood Dr.,Taunton, Ma.
Peggy Marshall, 185 Hart St. Taunton, Ma. had questions
Letter from Phil Neveu, 51 Briarwood Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Mr. Telsi tells the Board that he is proposing to go back to the original 72 units. He changed a few years ago to 49 units but the economy is not good and he cannot sell. He states he will go back to the 72 units with smaller units which will be more affordable. He stated there are 2 units (1 building) already constructed with one unit sold and occupied. He submitted As-Builts plans showing water & sewer. Wayne asked Chairman Ackerman if this proposal is ready to go forward. Chairman Ackerman stated the developer, under chapter 40B has a right to public hearing to request modifications. He stated we will proceed to ask questions. Chairman Ackerman stated he has been in contact with the Law Dept. and City Planner on this case. Mr. Telsi stated he has constructed road and sewer lines but the area doesn’t support bigger units. Chairman Ackerman stated because there are 2 new members on Board he will give history.
1. On or about, May 20, 2004 the Board issued a Comprehensive Permit pursuant to G. L. c. 40B to Land Broker’s Realty, Inc. to construct 72 dwelling units to be located on a parcel of land containing 24 +/- acres located on Hart Street in Taunton, Massachusetts, to be called “Pine Ridge Condominiums,” and said units to be restricted to occupancy to persons over the age of fifty-five (the “Comprehensive Permit”) The project was financed under the old New England Fund of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston.
2. On February 16, 2007 Land Broker’s Realty, Inc. sold the development to Non-Stop LLC (evidenced by a Deed recorded at the Bristol County Northern District Registry of Deeds at Book 16586, Page 234). Thereafter, on May 7, 2007 Non-Stop, LLC transferred title to the property to Green Pines LLC (evidenced by a Deed recorded at the Bristol County Northern District Registry of Deeds at Book16772, Page 272).
3. On or about April 23, 2007, June 12, 2007 and June 19, 2007 the Applicant through its representatives, requested a number of modifications to the Comprehensive Permit. A duly advertised public hearing was held on May 10, 2007 and continued to June 14, 2007 and July 12, 2007 where it was terminated.
4. At the conclusion of the public hearing on the requested modifications, the Board voted to deny all of the requested modifications. The decision of denial was filed with the City Clerk on August 13, 2007.
5. The Applicant filed an appeal of such denial with the Housing Appeals Committee on September 4, 2007. A hearing on this appeal was scheduled to commence on February 16, 2010.
6. On February 11, 2010 the Applicant proposed a settlement of the appeal that the Board advised it was willing to consider at a public hearing. The public hearing was scheduled for March 11, 2010 at 6:45 p.m. at City Hall Chambers and the hearing before the Housing Appeals Committee was continued accordingly.
7. The Board caused notice of the scheduled public hearing to be published in the Taunton Daily Gazette, mailed it certified to abutters and to other City Departments, including the City Planner, Conservation Commission, Fire Department, Engineer Department, School Department, Water Department, Park & Recreation Department, T.M.L.P., and the Department of Public Works and posted it in City Hall. The public hearing was held as scheduled. At the conclusion of the March 11, 2010 public hearing, the Board voted unanimously to modify the comprehensive permit as set forth in this decision. The voting members on the petition are: Joseph Amaral, Troy Medeiros, Wayne Berube, Peter Wasylow and Dennis Ackerman, Chairman.
8. The Board heard from Attorney Agostino on behalf of Non Stop, LLC and Green Pines, LLC, and other members of the public, during the public hearing on the requested modifications per the settlement agreement. The Board also heard from its own consultants, specifically Attorney Marguerite M. Mitchell, of Mitchell Law Offices 200 Belmont Street, Suite 200, Brockton, MA 02301.
9. WHEREFORE the request to modify the May 20, 2004 Comprehensive Permit issued to Non-Stop, LLC and/or Green Pines, LLC the successors-in-interest of Land Broker’s Realty, Inc. is hereby approved with conditions.
This decision will be filed with the City Clerk and anyone aggrieved by the findings or decision granting the requested change may appeal to the Superior Court within twenty (20) days of the filing of this decision with the City Clerk pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40B § 21, and M.G.L. c. 40A §17. If the requested change was denied, or conditions were imposed as part of this decision that were not previously offered by the Applicant as part of the settlement, and that make the housing uneconomic, the Applicant may appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee within twenty (20) days of the filing of this decision with the City Clerk pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40B §22 and 760 CMR 56.07(1)(c).
10. On May 12, 2010 the Decision, after the 20-day appeal period, the decision was recorded at the Registry of Deeds by a Representative of Non-Stop LLC and Green Pines LLC in Book 18744 Page 1 of 8.
11. No appeal was made on this case by representatives of Non-Stop LLC and Green Pines LLC as well any aggrieved persons.
Chairman Ackerman pointed out that throughout negotiations Mr. Telsi was in involved in the Settlement Agreement. Chairma Ackerman also pointed out that the original 72 units had a age restriction and so it’s not “back to the original approval”. Mr. Telsi stated the Board made changes and Chairman Ackerman reminded him of the Settlement Agreement of which he agreed. Chairman Ackerman reminded Mr. Telsi that a joint motion was executed and full resolution of all issues. He asked Mr. Telsi if he remembered that and Mr. Telsi states he agrees 100% . Chairman Ackerman read condition #5 which states he cannot come back for a modification that includes the increase of units. Mr. Telsi stated the units don’t fit the area at all. Chairman Ackerman stated there have
been changes in the area, namely, rezoning to Highway Business District, commercial area developed and proposed casino. Chairman Ackerman stated it would be more appropriate to re-design the site. Chairman Ackerman reminded Mr. Telsi again that he agreed to the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Telsi stated will have to shut down project and won’t be able to put sewer for Briarwood. Chairman Ackerman asked Mr. Telsi if he had a proforma? Mr. Telsi didn’t have a Proforma and didn’t know what it was? Chairman Ackerman educated him on what a Proforma was. Wayned state the Board went through the Settlement agreement and it was all agreed on. According to the City Planner’s letter condition #5 specifically stated you cannot ask for more units. His letter also recommends requesting updated traffic study, proforma justifying what you are seeking. There are also outstanding monies owed upon your receipt of your Cert. of Occupancy. Mr. Telsi stated if he can get some kinda idea from Board
how they feel he will get that information. Wayne informed Mr. Telsi he’s not ready to make full presentation. In his opinion, you are stuck with what was approved. Joe stated the 72 units is not the same as was approved. Joe stated he has a right to come here but the decisions states you cannot increase the number of units. Mr. Telsi appealed to the Board and says “I just need to do something”. It was suggested he look at the design of the buildings and perhaps reducing the number of units? Chairman Ackerman stated you can’t just want to increase the number of units without knowing if it’s going to work? Chairman Ackerman stated that is why the Proforma and Traffic study are necessary to determine if the site will work. Chairman Ackerman gave Mr. Telsi the opportunity to provide the necessary information to the Board and ask if he would like to continue?
Mr. Telsi pressed the Board to vote on his presentation tonight. Public Input: Peter Andrade, 18 Briarwood Drive, stated there has to be an end somewhere. This neighborhood has bedn dealing with this for over 10 years. The developer is asking for a 50% increase in units. Chairman Ackerman pointed out the original impact fees were $1,625 and they reduced to $1,200. Chairman Ackerman stated that is why he offered a continuance to allow developer to provide pertinent information to the Board. Peggy Marshall, 185 Hart St., stated she’s not opposed and never has been just a question. She asked if the original decision is still enforceable? Chairman Ackerman answers yes, the amended decisions only deals with a few items, the original decision still stands. She brought up the fact in the P&S and deed it should disclose there is an existing construction company next door. She has deed for
unit sold and it doesn’t state it. It referenced a “master deed” of which is 31 pages and she quickly reviewed it but didn’t think she should have to pay $31 for it. They asked Mr. Telsi if it was in Deed and he says no not in quit claim deed but it’s in the master deed. Chairman Ackerman stated it should be in deed and in purchase & sales agreement.
Prior to voting on the proposed modifications the ZBA again gave the applicant the opportunity to continue the hearing to update the traffic study and provide a Proforma.
The Board voted, at the insistence of the applicant, on the proposed modifications individually.
Motion made and seconded to grant the increase of units from 49 Unit to 72 Units: The Board based their vote on the following :
“The Applicant and all subsequent holders of this Comprehensive Permit shall not be able to return to the Board to request a modification to the Comprehensive Permit that involves a request to increase the number of units and/or to add extra bedrooms in the units (limitation of 2 bedroom units that exists in the original permit will remain for this modification), notwithstanding any right to request such modifications pursuant to G.L. c. 40B, §§ 20-23 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including 760 C.M.R. § 56.05(11). The condominium documents for the development shall provide express restrictions on the number of units in the development and the number of bedrooms allowed within each unit.”
VOTE: 0 In Favor 5 Opposed
Dennis I Ackerman, Chairman No
Joseph Amaral, Clerk No
Estele Borges No
Steven Vieira No
Wayne Berube No
REQUEST DENIED:
Motion made and seconded to Grant the removal of the impact fees for market rate units: The Board based their vote on the following:
“The Applicant shall pay to the City the sum of Twelve Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00) per market rate dwelling unit. For the first thirty (30) market rate dwelling units, payment shall be made no later than five (5) business days after the City has issued an occupancy permit for the market rate dwelling unit for which the payment is owed. For the remaining six (6) market rate dwelling units, payment shall be made prior to issuance of a building permit for the market rate dwelling unit for which the payment is owed. The payment shall be made pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 44 s. 53A and the form of payment shall be approved by the Board’s legal counsel. The funds shall be used for such other public purposes as the Board may later deem appropriate.
VOTE: 0 In Favor 5 Opposed
Dennis I Ackerman, Chairman No
Joseph Amaral, Clerk No
Estele Borges No
Steven Vieira No
Wayne Berube No
REQUEST DENIED:
Motion made and seconded to Grant the release of cash surety for 4 units and allow bond for future units.
VOTE: 0 In Favor 5 Opposed
Dennis I Ackerman, Chairman No
Joseph Amaral, Clerk No
Estele Borges No
Steven Vieira No
Wayne Berube No
REQUEST DENIED:
Case # 3151 AMR Ambulance Service 18 Reed St.
Hearing held on October 11, 2012
For: A Variance from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Service Use (Ambulance Service)
For the Petitioner: Ian Bryant, Operations Manager, AMR Ambulance Service, 64 Weir St. Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: William Kenney, 15 Reed St., Taunton, Ma.
Margaret Evans, 59 Wales St.
Rosemar Hellweg, Manager, 39 Olney St., Taunton, Ma.
Bill Eagan, 32 Wales St., Taunton, Ma.
Juanita Gallagher, 145 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma.
Ian states they are currently the provider emergency 911 and non-emergency for the City and Steward Hospital (Morton Hospital). They are currently located on Weir Street, next to Sandbar Grille. Since 2006 the Sandbar has grown and there has been issues with egress and access. The owners do their best to instruct patrons to not block but it’s difficult at times. Ian stated he has been in pursuit of finding new building for the last 18 months. It has been difficult because they are required to be certain distance in order to comply with the response time. They have between 8-9 dedicated vehicles and a few non-dedicated vehicles. He is aware the neighborhood has concerns. They are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They have 6,000 emergency calls a
years and transport 5,300 of those to the hospital. However; they would be very respectful of their neighbors. There would be no need for night sirens. He acknowledges there would be more traffic than what is there now. He would have a few ambulances comes and going but the ambulance go out and are placed a various locations throughout the City. Joe asked how many vehicles can the building hold? Ian answers packed 28 vehicles. He has 15 wheel chair vehicles and they work an 8 hour shift. Chairman Ackerman asked about the 18 vehicles? Ian stated that 2 trucks are dedicated and will be at location and others will be scattered about the City. They have one ALS (transfer unit) which they bring patients to Boston. Wayne asked if they are 24 hours? Ian answers yes he has 2 dedicated vehicles (have 3rd for backup) that will be 24 hours a days. In reality the day starts between 8-10 am. He has stated there is no reason to put siren on at night. Perhaps there might be an
occasion but it won’t be a practice. Steven stated that occasionally they will need to put sirens on. Ian stated he can express to the drivers not to put on until they get onto Oak Street. He wants to be a good neighbor. Joe asked what other uses are on site? Ian stated there are smaller storage unit and he will be occupying the back of the building, parallel to Wales Street and there is plenty of parking. No one in favor. Opposition: William Kenney, 15 Reed St. stated the ambulance service is great but this isn’t the right location for it. There are too many houses and the lights & noises will be a negative impact on neighborhood. He stated the food bank was there and we saw 18 wheelers once a week. There are 2 elderly housing complexes in area. Opposed: Margaret Evans., 59 Wales St. She has lived there for 44 years and the traffic is horrible and this use will only add to it. She stated there is situated on Reed Street of which the Chief knows about. This is not
the right spot for this use. She stated when it rains the road floods and she cannot leave for 2 hours. She stated 59, 66 64 & 68 Wales Street flood terrible. Opposed: Rosemary Hellweg, Manager, 39 Olney Street. She is speaking for the 43 senior citizens and this will be right in their backyard. She agrees the services are good but the noise and congestion will not be. They tried putting in music studio several years ago and thankfully it was denied. She stated there is the Italian Club and Hispanic club down road, 2 senior housing complexes and another housing complex already approved. She stated she can hear the painting company leaving at 6:30 Am and banging ladders as they pack their trucks. She documented all the uses in close proximity, trains 2 times a day, Bloom Bus, Fitzsimmons Arms, City View Apartment, Italian Club, and a state home. Opposed: Juanita Gallagher, 145 Winthrop Street states she lives 1/4 mile away
but she is concerned for the elderly in the area. She points out the congestion in the area, flood on Wales Street and her mom-in-law lives in Fitzsimmons Arms. Ian understands the neighbors’ concerns. He needs to find place within one-mile radius of City to be in compliance with response time. He stated by 2014 they will no longer have diesel vehicles and he understands there are already issues in the area. He is proposing to minimize the lights & noise but he agrees it’s a tough situation. He stated he lives in Plymouth on main road where the ambulance service is housed and he has no issues. Joe is familiar with that site. Ian stated he truly has been looking for 18 months for new place. Chairman Ackerman pointed out it’s a tough situation. Ian stated they want to be part of the neighborhood and are willing to work with them. Chairman Ackerman suggested meeting with neighbors
to address their concerns. Some neighbors said they weren’t going to change their minds. They like the service but agree this is not the right place for it. Wayne asked about how far away would they turn sirens on? Ian states State Law requires at intersections for Safety reasons. Joe pointed out the Eagles is on Oak Street and they sometimes park across street at Bloom Bus Terminal. Letters from the Fire Dept., City Planner, Conservation Commission and B.O.H. were read into the record Steve added that this is not the appropriate area due to the elderly, congested streets and it being a 24 hours 7 days a week operation.
Motion to Grant with the following condition:
- Ban the use of any emergency lights or sirens until the ambulances have completely exited the neighborhood and reach Oak St.
Vote: Vieira,Berube, Borges, Amaral, Ackerman, ..............No
Petition Denied:
Cont’d. Case # 3112 Whittenton Mills Redevelopment LLC
437 Whittenton St.
Hearing held on October 11, 2012
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 and a Variance from Section 7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the modification of existing mill buildings for use as an Assisted Living Facility in a Business District with a maximum height of 56 feet and 4 stories (instead of 40’ maximum & 3 stories)
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P.O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Eamon O’Marah, Senior V.P., Jones Lang LaSalle, One Post Office Square, Boston,Ma.
Michael Connolly, Senior V.P., Jones Lang LaSalle, One Post Office Square, Boston, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposed: None
Chairman Ackerman stated all taxes have been paid and they can proceed with hearing. Atty. Gay stated they are requesting a Special Permit for an Assisted Living Facility and variance for height (stories & feet) of building. They are proposing 120 unit full service assisted living facility. They have a concept for future, in the distant future, for residential development. Atty. Gay stated there is only one assisted living facility in the City (the Arbors) and this will be located in back with a nice view of pond and plenty of parking. He stated they are looking to see if the buildings are historic which could have some value. The total property consists of 42 acres. They are in the process of getting financing. Eamon O’Marah, Jones Lang LaSalle is in charge of the real
estate part of t. He takes care of advisory, permitting capital management and proformas. Mike Connolly, V.PJones Lang LaSalle looks at permitting part of it, uses allowed, meeting with consultants, applying for variances/special permits. He looks at all local & state permitting including Fire, Police, Water and sewer. Atty. Gay stated they met with the City Planner and with the limited frontage for this lot he said this lot has “uniqueness”. Atty. Gay stated the will develop this under the Lot aggregation ordinance. Atty. Gay stated if they don’t use the historical credits (if the buildings qualify) then they will take buildings down. Chairman Ackerman said he likes the concept and he had one major concern. He was concerned with getting financing. That is why he would have like to see a Proforma and traffic study. Atty. Gay stated in the beginning there was some discussion by the Council on outstanding
taxes and their investor disappeared. Eamon stated this is a viable project and they may be using the EB5 Program. Chairman Ackerman stated the property owner wants to do something. It was stated the Board is Pro-Business. Joe asked if phase 1 is the Assisted Living Facility and next phase doesn’t go in? You will have an assisted living facility in the middle of warehouse buildings. Phase 2 will be the residential and they will their own road and the Assisted Living Facility will be located separate from commercial warehouse buildings. Eamon stated the Assisted Living User would want some assurance that the commercial improvement will be done. Mike stated they have done research and looked permitting process they need to go through and in some cases it could be a year before all the permitting process is done. Wayne stated the height variance is for the existing buildings. They were acceptable to providing a proforma within 3
months. Chairman Ackerman asked about financing? Eaman stated that one approach is to take advantage of the EB5 Program and another is foreign investors. He stated the Government support the EB5 program and they will encourage other investors. No one in favor or opposed. Letters from the Fire Dept., Conservation Commission, City Planner and B.O.H. were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded to approve with the following condition:
- Submit proforma with 3-4 months.
Vote: Ackerman, Amaral, Borges, Medeiros, Vieira, .................Yes
Petition Granted:
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM
| 
