CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 11, 2009
Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Wasylow, Berube,Enos, Joyce. Amaral present at 6:51 PM.
Meeting called to order at 6:45 PM
Wayne made motion to accept May 14, 2009 minutes, seconded by Gill. All in favor.
Case #2966 City of Taunton South Precinct St. Property I.D. 130-61
Hearing held on June 11, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the City of Taunton Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot having 44,242 sq. ft. (instead of 60,000 sq. ft. ) and 125 feet of frontage (instead of 150 feet) on premise situated on South Precinct Street, E. Taunton, Ma. and known as Assessor’s Property I.D. 130-61.
For the Petitioner: Mark Slusarz, City Engineer, 15 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
In Favor: None
Opposition: Richard & Kelly Ploude, 40 Woodland Trail, E. Taunton, Ma.
Richard Ploude, 280 Myricks St. , E. Taunton, Ma.
Greg & Michelle Morin, 115 Woodland Trail, E. Taunton, Ma.
Terri Quinn, 91 Woodland Trail, E. Taunton, Ma.
Michael & Miary Kosharek, 29 Woodland Trail, E. Taunton, Ma.
Sean Dacci, 55 Woodland Trail, E. Taunton, Ma.
Diane Roth, 118 Woodland Trail, E. Taunton, Ma.
City Engineer stated this is City owned property which the City acquired through tax title and they wish to sell it. The lot is compatible with the surrounding area because the other lots in the area are non-compliance but are compatible. Mark stated the lot size fits better with the surrounding properties. No one appearing in favor. Opposed: Richard Ploude, 40 Woodland Trail, voiced his opposition. He submits letters from neighbors in opposition. Mr. Ploude stated the Engineer brought up that this lot is in compliance with what exists. He states this lot is 27% smaller than what is required. He had some concerts about how the City went out to bid/auction. He stated the auction was on site and he bid but was not the winner. There was a silent bid and he was not
awarded that either. The information submitted in that was incorrect according to the lot size. The information stated the lot size was 60,000 sq. ft. and he stated there may have been some back room tantics. Chairman Ackerman interrupted and informed him that they are here for a Variance and not about the bid process. He stated he will have to take up the legality for the bid process with the City’s Law Office. John and Wayne agree to let Mr. Ploude give background on this lot? Mr. Ploude stated that there has been work done on the property? He stated he has seen For Sale Sign on property? Mr. Ploude stated the property directly adjacent from this lot is his and there was some damage to some of his plantings. He submitted pictures showing tire tracks and some of his plantings were destroyed. Gill asked when was the damage done? Mr. Ploude stated about 3-4 months ago. John asked if he
was successful in obtaining property what was he going to use the land for? He would use the property for a house because he could convey some land and a variance would not be needed. Opposed: Richard Ploude, Jr. 280 Myricks St. stated there is no need for variance and the City is asking for variance? Gill stated the property was auctioned off “as is”. It was up to the new owner to do “due diligence”. It was auctioned off
Page 2 of 7 – ZBA Minutes – 6-11-09
in April and the auctioneer stated it was their responsibility to do their “due diligence” . It was asked if there was a P&S? It was noted the City still owns this property. Wayne stated if the property is under agreement then it should have been submitted. He stated he see how the City obtained it thru court decree. John stated after hearing from the abutters there is no need for variance. He stated he thinks the City has good standing in applying, that is not the question. Wayne stated the City wants to get variance to make the lot buildable. It was noted there is apparently a buyer for this property and the abutter present was a bidder. John stated there is no hardship because the land can be re-configured to meet the requirements. Chairman Ackerman stated John
was wrong because the City only has the land in its current configuration. John stated that’s the Chairman’s opinion that he is wrong. John respectfully disagrees. Richard Ploude, Jr. stated, if granted, he would like some kind of fencing, perhaps a snow fence, during construction. He also wanted to know the size of the house they would be constructing? Chairman Ackerman stated that once the opposition speaks and we go back to the petitioner the opposition doesn’t have the opportunity to speak again so he suggests asking all his questions now. Mr. Ploude stated there is water in his basement. The Board stated the City Engineer checks to see that there would be no additional run off during the building permit process. Wayne asked the City Engineer if he was aware this property was under agreement? Wayne stated he has no knowledge. Peter thought the City had an agreement and now they want to
make it a buildable lot. It was asked whether the City has to go out to auction? Gill answered no unless there is an unsuccessful bid. John asked the City Engineer when the error was discovered about the lot size? Mark stated about several months ago. It was known they needed a frontage variance and the he discovered the lot size. John stated he would like to have someone from the Law Dept. representing this case. It was suggested continue and getting more information and invite someone from the Law Office who know more about the bid process and auction. John stated the City creates the zoning ordinance and now they are asking to not comply with it. In his opinion, a variance would not be needed if the abutter has possession of lot. He stated the last resort is to come before the ZBA for a variance and under extreme circumstances.
Motion made and seconded to continue until next month with the following conditions:
1. Copy of the Purchase & Sales Agreement if there is one.
2. Did the property go out to bid and/or auction.
3. To have representation form the legal department.
VOTE: Wasylow, Berube, Enos, Ackerman, …………….…………...Yes
Joyce……………………………………………………………No
Petition continued until July 30, 2009
Case #2965 DeSilva 1423 Somerset Ave.
Hearing held on June 11, 2009
For: A Special Permit from Section 5.3.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use & structure by allowing outdoor seating for 48 (8 picnic tables) an 9 x 25 addition for storage/refrigeration, roofing over patio area, 3 fiberglass cows for lawn decoration, 1 fiberglass cow to be located on the rooftop; and the addition of 7 parking spaces for Frates Drive-In.
Page 3 of 7 – ZBA Minutes 6-11-09
For the Petitioner: Dennis DeSilva, 1423 Somerset Ave., Taunton, Ma. .
In favor: Bill Laliberte, 19 Powderhorn Dr., Taunton, Ma.
David Jaeger, 3 Clay St., Taunton, Ma.
Janice Lawlor, 106 N. Walker St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: Tom Campbell, 8 South St., Taunton, Ma. had some concerns.
Mr. DeSilva stated he has taken a building that has been abandoned for a couple of years and brought it back to life. He stated they have made improvements to the site and brought back a little nostalgia to the site. They are trying to create a family fun ice cream and sandwich establishment. He stated they opened on April 14, 2009 and it means a lot to him to work at the place he used to work at as a child. He stated he did his due diligent and got determination from the City Planner and was under the impression he was grandfathered. He stated he purchased the property on August 29, 2009 and he being a layman he thought the determination should have been a little more clear in regards to the grandfathering status and stated 2 years. He stated they received approval from the Board of Health for 16
seats (4 picnic tables) last week. He stated he’s here tonight for outdoor seating but also for an addition of a storage/refrigeration unit. They are proposing to put fiberglass life size cows for decoration and a local artist has painted the building. Mr. DeSilva stated they have put new grass, irrigation system and will put up fencing for the safety of the children along South Street. He stated the Cow will be a roof sign and they are also adding 7 additional parking spaces in addition to the Handicapped parking space. They have put in a Handicapped Bathroom so they have spent a considerable amount of money on the improvements. He stated Channel 10 did story on them and it was all positive. John asked where is the proposed fencing going? He too was concerned for the children along South Street. Mr. DeSilva stated he is proposing to put fencing the entire length of South Street where the family of cows would go. It was asked what kind of fencing? Mr. DeSilva answers
post & rail fence. Gill asked the hours of operation? Mr. DeSilva answers 11:00 AM – 10:00 PM. 7 days a week. It was asked how many months are they open? Mr. DeSilva stated about 9 months out of the year but stated all year because he has help. Wayne commended Mr. DeSilva for putting his heart and soul into this project and developing his dream of working and running a business that he once worked at as a child. Wayne stated he drove by and saw Mr. DeSilva cleaning out gutters which shows his devotion and pride in the business. Mr. DeSilva stated he was in the hotel business for several years and retired and now is fulfilling his dreams. In favor: Bill Laliberte, 19 Powderhorn Dr., stated he was very impressed with the cleanliness of the site and gives the owners credit. He stated he has spread the word to his family and friends about the fine establishment. David Jaeger, 3 Clay St., stated this site has
been a gathering place for unpleasant people and this is a fine addition to the neighborhood. In favor: Janice Lawlor, 106 No. Walker St. stated she used to buy penny candy at the old store a long time ago. The stated this new site is fantastic and his shows the owners put their heart and soul into it. Opposed: Tom Campbell, stated he’s not really opposed but has some concerns with the addition of tables. He stated the new owners have done an excellent job and commends them. However; he’s concerned with the tables which will attract the teenagers who drive and have loud radios. He stated he used to live next to a Dairy Queen and it was a teenage hangout. He too had problem with trash collecting in his yard. Joe asked if he ever saw people hanging out there as the previous abutter testified? Mr. Campbell answers not to his knowledge. Joe stated he thinks this gentlemen will police his parking lot. Mr. Campbell stated the Daily Queen owners actually lost money when they
put the table in because the teenagers gathered there and scared all the other people away. When they removed the tables the made more money. Mr. DeSilva stated he has state of the art security and will police and won’t stand for anyone hanging out. He will personally give Mr. Campbell his cell number and he can call should there be any problems. He does appreciate his comments and stated he will take care of the trash too. Mr. DeSilva stated there used to be people hanging around and the State Police was glad to see new use there. Letters
Page 4 of 7 – ZBA Minutes – 6-11-09
from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Water Dept., and City Planner were read into the record. It was noted a Departmental Site Plan Review is required because of the new addition, additional parking area. John commented on what an excellent job with the improvements. Mr. DeSilva stated he told people he wanted to open business in Taunton and they said it was difficult. He stated the Police, Fire, Building Inspector, B.O.H., Plumbing Inspector all have been so nice. He did have issue with City Planner but he has come around.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Wasylow, Berube, Enos, Ackerman, Amaral…………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2964 GMB Properties LLC 8 Cushman St.
Hearing held on May 14, 2009
For: A variance from Section 7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the dwelling conversion of a pre-existing non-conforming 2 family dwelling to a 3 family dwelling have 7,650 sq. ft. (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.)
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Mary Beth Daniels, 46 Upon St., Boston, Ma.
Opposition: None
Atty. Gay stated he is asking for a Variance from Section 7.8 to allow a dwelling conversion of a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling. He stated the first floor has 2 bedroom, 2nd floor has 2 bedrooms and the basement unit has 1 bedroom. His clients purchased house 4 years ago but has been in the family for about 10 years. Atty. Gay stated the basement unit is rented to a Section 8 tenant and has been inspected by them and South Shore Housing. There was a complaint was raided about possible mold and the Board of Health got involved and then the Building Department got involved. As a result of the building department being involved a number of issues were brought forward. Atty. Gay states the basement unit requires a dehumidifier and issues regarding 2nd means of egress. There was an
inspection by the Fire Dept. and it was discovered the ceiling height might not conform of the building code. They went for hearing at B.O.H. and received approval. They may have to get one additional variance relative to the height depending on what the Building Department decides. They do need to go to the State for variance. Atty. Gay stated we can’t get certificate of occupancy unless we resolved ALL issues. Atty. Gay stated there is more than ample parking and the property along with abutting property is very well kept. There are a lot of multifamily dwelling and this is the “Norm” in this area. Atty. Gay stated they are not proposing any changes to the exterior and the history has been no more than 4 adults in the building. Currently there is an adult with one child on first floor, adult with college child on second and basement unit has single tenant. Atty. Gay stated due to the size it limits the number
of tenants. Peter asked who submitted reason in application? Atty. Gay stated he sometimes writes them but not this time. Peter asked where the hardship was? He stated he see the hardship is being financial and you can’t have that? Atty. Gay stated they purchased the property when the market was good and they purchased it was a three-family and now find out it’s not. Atty. Gay stated the hardship is relating to the size of the lot and because it’s been in that configuration since the 1800’s. Wayne stated the ordinance created the
Page 5 of 7 – ZBA Minutes – 6-11-09
hardship? Atty. Gay stated if the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance were enforced they would not be able to have 3 family on smaller lot.
Wayne stated in essence you are legalizing what is there. Joe stated it’s an active 3 family with no known problems. Basically the variance would just legalize what exists. Chairman Ackerman stated that South Shore Housing has to monitor and they have found no problems. They are required to meet requirements too. Chairman Ackerman keeping this will keep tax base to the City and provide housing. Mary Beth Daniels, co-owner, 46 Upton St., Boston, Ma. She stated has rented the basements units for the last 6-7 years with no problems. It was asked if it’s one bedroom and she answers yes. Letters from the Conservation Commission, City Planner, Water Dept. and Board of Health were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded Grant with the following conditions:
1. Petitioner is required to comply with all the minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation, State Sanitary Code, Chapter II which included correcting all items in the Board of Health letter dated June 4, 2009
2. Petitioner must obtain a variance on the ceiling heights from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before it can be classified as an additional habitable space.
VOTE: Wasylow, Berube, Enos, Ackerman, Amaral. ………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2967 Courcy 283 Whittenton St.
Hearing held on June 11, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 7.8 and 7.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the dwelling conversion of a
2- family dwelling to a 3 family dwelling having 5,050 sq. ft. (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) and having 5 parking spaces (instead of 6 spaces) with more than 60% of parking in the rear of property.
For the Petitioner: Paul Courcy, 30 Lehner Dr., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Sean & Galdina Medeiros, 285 Whittenton St., Taunton, Ma.
Adrienne Lemieux, 277 Whittenton St., Taunton, Ma.
Wanda Widak & Linda Gouveia, owner of 12 Lawrence St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: None
Mr. Courcy stated this property is located next to Fourth & Fifth Street which are all between 3, 4 or 5 units. The space is already there and there will be no changes. Joe asked how long as the unit been there? Mr. Courcy stated approximately 3 years. John asked what caused you to come before the ZBA? Mr. Courcy stated he received letter from the Building Department. Mr. Courcy has owned the property for 12 years and within the last few years made it a 3 family without knowing he had to come for permit. Gill asked if he created the 3rd unit? Mr. Courcy answers yes. Chairman Ackerman asked if he lived there? Mr. Courcy answers no. There are tenants at will living there. Joe asked how many
Page 6 of 7 – ZBA Minutes – 6-11-09
people live in the third unit? Mr. Courcy answers a couple with newborn baby. Joe asked if there is any way of getting another parking space? Mr. Courcy stated no, because you don’t allow parking in front. Gill asked how many vehicles are there now? Mr. Courcy answers 4 vehicles. The first floor has 3 bedrooms, 2nd floor has 3 bedrooms and the third floor has 1 bedroom. In favor: Galdina Medeiros, owns property right next door (285 Whittenton St) and stated she is perfectly fine with request. She stated Paul is an excellent landlord and she knows it’s hard. They try to keep their property clean and so does he. She sees him taking care of his property all the time even though he doesn’t live there. She never noticed another tenant there.
The area needs someone like him to take interest in their investment. Adrienne Lemieux, 277 Whittenton St., stated she has lived there all her life and has no problems. The tenants are good and so is Paul. They have been good neighbors. No opposition.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Wasylow, Berube, Enos, Amaral. …………….…………...Yes
Ackerman abstains from voting.
Petition Granted:
Case #2657 Remand Jaminac Corp. 1115 Cohannet St.
Hearing held on June 11, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 7.8 and 7.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the dwelling conversion of a
2- family dwelling to a 3 family dwelling having 5,050 sq. ft. (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) and having 5 parking spaces (instead of 6 spaces) with more than 60% of parking in the rear of property.
For the Petitioner: Atty. Edward Pietnik, 814 Broadway, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Howard & Cynthia Beard, Sr., 1109 Cohannet St., Taunton, Ma.
Atty. Pietnik stated this case has been remanded back to the ZBA from Superior Court to review the use and height of the building. He stated the parcel is of good size and located on Cohannet Street and has frontage on Winthrop Street. A portion of the property abuts where Hannaford’s Supermarket is and the commercial use on the property is located on Winthrop Street. Atty. Pietnik submits photos showing the trees and shows how the building is tucked into a corner and surrounded by a wooden fence. He stated the pictures show the building being blocked off from the entire neighborhood. He stated the prior use was a garage door business which had 3 full time employees and trucks coming & going all during the day. The use now is simply for storage and they are using the
entrance on Cohannet Street on occasion. Atty. Pietnik stated the abutters are in support now. The new owner has cleaned up the property by removing trailers, brush and kids were hanging out there. Atty. Pietnik states the use is not substantial more detrimental that what was there. The prior use was much more detrimental to the surrounding properties. Wayne asked what are they storing? Atty. Pietnik states they store trucks, front end loaders and a couple of trailers. The traffic is reduced substantially and there are no employees. Joe asked why this is coming back, after 5 years? Atty. Pietnik stated that’s how long it took for the court system. In favor: Howard Beard, Sr., 1109 Cohannet St., stated he had no problems with new owners. They cleaned up property and he is very happy now. It was noted he was previously opposed. It was stated there is different owner and she has done a substantial amount of cleanup. Cynthia Beard, 1109 Cohannet St., stated the new owner has
done a marvelous job in the clean up, took down mound of dirt and she has no complaints. Wayne stated the original petitioner was Jaminac and now? Atty. Pietnik stated the petitioner and the
Page 7 of 7 – ZBA minutes – 6-11-09
previous owner had a relationship and his clients now has ownership as a result of the division of parcels.
Letters from the B.O.H., Water Dept., and City Planner were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Wasylow, Berube, Enos, Ackerman, Amaral. ………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.
Next meeting is JULY 30, 2009 AT 6:45 PM. NO AUGUST MEETING
50
| 
