Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
7-16-15

CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
 July 16, 2015  – 6:00 pm.       
(held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St, Taunton, Ma.)

Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Wayne Berube, Michael Staples , George Moniz , Joseph Amaral, and  Steven Figueiredo.
  
Meeting opens at 6:04 PM   

Chairman Ackerman explained the ZBA process. He stated the petitioner presents their case, then they hear in favor and the opposition. They allow petitioner to address any of the opposition’s concerns. They do not go back and forth.  

    
Case # 3276 – Norcross – Clarification on vote: Chairman Ackerman read the following statement:

This is a clarification to a Public Hearing held on June 11, 2015 dealing with case #3276 65 Shores Street Taunton, MA Petition of Deborah Norcross.

At the Public Hearing a presentation by Attorney Mathew Costa was given.. There also was a presentation given by the petitioner Deborah Norcross. The Board at the close of the hearing took an initial vote. The vote was three in favor and two against. The petition ~therefore was defeated. After some discussion a motion was made to reconsider the vote. The vote passed on a five to zero vote.

After the meeting I received an email letter from Board Member Attorney Wayne Berube citing the Taunton Zoning Board Rules and Regulations (see attachment A). In our regulations (see attachment B) the Board cannot reconsider a vote found in Article IV Section 3 ~"Once a petition is voted on ~there shall be no reconsideration of a decision of the Board". With this being the fact the second vote was improper and illegal.

All votes and discussion should have not have transpired. I, as Chairman, therefore decided to file a denial decision with the City Clerk. I alone made this decision without consultation of any other Board members.

Further we must comply to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, if we do not chaos will develop. The Rules and Regulations are the rules and must be adhered to.~

My role as Chairman is quite clear follow the rules and wishes of the Board.

Wayne made motion, seconded by Steven Vieira voted 5-0 to re-affirm the action of the Chairman as being proper. All in favor.

Wayne made motion seconded by Steven Vieira voted 5-0 to attach the above documents as supplement comments to the original decision. All in favor.

Atty.Costa asked to speak. Chairman Ackerman gave him a few minutes  to speak.  He objected to the denial decision that was filed and he has appealed that decision.    He states, in his opinion, when the Board voted to reconsider the vote that was construed as the Board waiving the rules.  Chairman Ackerman interrupts Atty. Costa and acknowledges that he has received the letter that was sent to the Law Office.  Atty. Costa thinks the Board did not act in good faith.  Chairman Ackerman stated they made error in considering the re-consideration and they have to go by the first vote.     Joe stated he has been on Board for long time and they have never re-considered a vote.  They made a mistake and they have to fix it by allowing the first vote to count.     
Atty. Costa asked to have his letter read into the record.  Chairman  Ackerman asked the Asst. City Solicitor who was present if they had to allow  it.  Asst. Solicitor deAbreau stated he is not required to read it but he can if they want.  
Chairman Ackerman asked the Board and all said no.  


Case #3281       Leite                                                       Hoover Street (Property I.D                                                                                                                                                                             91-286, 91-297, 91-298, & 91-301)
For:  A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for a single family dwelling in an Industrial District.

For the Petitioner:  Atty. William Rounds, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma.                                
                                
In favor:    None
Opposed:   None

Wayne disclosed that he represented Mr. Leite in the past but has not worked with him for some quite time but there is no conflict so he can vote on this case.   Atty. Rounds stated the previous owner received approval on the condition that there was a roadway Improvement Plan done and it was done.  Unfortunately due to some medical issues the applicant was unable to exercise the variance which has now lapsed.  The initial proposal was for 3 lots and this proposal includes the other side of the road totaling 6 lots.   The petitioner spent $330,000 on the property and now wishes to finish  and break even.  Atty. Rounds states this property was part of an old subdivision from the 1920’s.  Chairman Ackerman stated there are several lots in the area that are of similar size.  Wayne asked if the roadway is paved and Atty. Rounds answered yes and they had to leave sewer stubs for future lots.  Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, Board of Health, Conservation Commission. B.O.H. and Engineer into the record.   No one in favor or opposed.    Joe stated he was surprised this is in the Suburban Residential District.  

 
Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented:  
Vote: Vieira, Berube, Amaral, Staples, Ackerman, ....... …Yes

Petition Granted.
   

Case #3282                             Rapoza                                    42 Davis St.
                                                                                                                                        
For:  A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an addition having an 11’2” side setback (instead of 15’)


For the Petitioner: Daniel Rapoza, 42 Davis St., Taunton, Ma.
                                                               
In favor:  Anthony & Nancy Lopes, 46 Davis St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposed:  None       
 
Mr. Rapoza stated he wants to put addition on his house but after a survey was conducted  he found out the side line setback of 15 feet was not met.  He applied and received a building permit in December 2014 and put foundation in.  It was brought to his attention by his neighbor that he didn’t meet the setback.  He used the GIS plan and thought he had about 22 feet from the side.  Unfortunately that was not the case.  This is why you need a survey plan.  Mr. Rapoza stated he has been there for 39 years and he always thought the stone wall was his now and he found out it wasn’t.   Chairman Ackerman read letter from the City Planner, B.O.H., Conservation Commission and City Engineer into the record.  The City Engineer recommends Option #2.  Letter from Anthony & Nancy Lopes in favor as long as their agreement in complied with. A copy of the legal agreement was presented.  Chairman Ackerman asked if they wanted the agreement read and they declined, just reference it in the decision.  No one opposed.

Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented with the following conditions:

  • Option #2 be constructed.  The proposed swale will direct runoff from the adjacent property, is easier and less costly to maintain, and will be visually less intrusive than a concrete wall.
  • Petitioner is required to comply with all conditions in signed agreement with Anthony & Nancy Lopes.
Vote: Vieira, Berube, Amaral, Staples, Ackerman…..... …Yes
Petition Granted.
   
Case #3023- Mod                     Costa                                   51 Summer St.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
A Variance from Section 7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to modify Case # 3023 and remove the following conditions: 1) The garage will stay as is, a three-car garage subject to Historic Commission approval but will be renovated and upgraded. # 5) on the north side of the property the blue spruce tree will stay and there will be selective trimming of the other trees as necessary to protect the building. Condition #6) Each unit will be a two (2) bedroom unit with an office or study as the third room.

For the Petitioner: Atty. John-Paul Thomas, 98 County St., Taunton, Ma.
                                                               
In favor:  None
                  
Opposed: Dr. Joseph Nates, 54 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
               Lisa Nates, 54 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
               Darryl Gaines, 57 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
               Steve Wyrosdic, 58 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
               Edward Smith, 56 Summer St., Taunton, Ma.
                                                 
               
Atty. Thomas stated they are here tonight to ask for modification of Case # 3023 to take out some conditions.   The existing garage is in the rear of the property and in bad shape.  Part of the ZBA approval was for the petitioner to repair it.  The petitioner has already spent a substantial amount of money on the house which all agree is beautiful.  Atty. Thomas stated he has letter from Building Inspector saying the structure is in bad shape and should be repaired  or taken down.  Atty. Thomas stated at the Historic District Commission it was discussed that garage is in need of some desperate repair.  Atty. Thomas stated there are many multifamilies in the neighborhood.   They are requesting to not have to repair the garage and take down.  The other request is to take down tree on left side and be allowed to have 3 bedrooms.    Atty. Thomas stated denying the request will create a significant hardship on the petitioner.  The cost to repair the garage is about $100,000 which is cost prohibited.  Atty. Thomas agrees the petitioner did a great job cleaning up with property.  He is asking 3 bedrooms be allowed for it to more marketable.  Joe asked if anyone lives there and they stated yes.  Atty. Thomas states he is asking for 3 of the original conditions to be removed.  #1 remove not repair garage, #5 trees and #6 number of bedrooms allowed (wants 3 instead of 2). Joe asked if all the other conditions have been met and Atty. Thomas answers yes with recently putting up shutters.  Chairman Ackerman read dept. letters from City Planner, Conservation Commission, B.O.H., Bldg. Commissioner, Historic District Commission and ASAP Design Co. Opposed:  Dr. Joseph Nates, 54 Summer St., he has lived here for 64 years and he asks the Board to uphold the decision.  The property was initially owned by Friedman and then in 2011 the ZBA approved it for a 2 family with several conditions.  The property was vacant for some time and at that time the garage was in better shape.  He stated the developed did a good job renovating the house and he can re-store garage.  He replaced the roof on the garage a few years back.  He now doesn’t want to spend any more money on the garage.  He stated the garage is viewable from Summer Street and to take it down would leave a wide open parking area.  Lisa Nates, 54 Summer St., stated she went the Historic District meeting and she didn’t think they were aware of the ZBA conditions. The Historic District Commission declined to act on the garage and there was no hearing on it.   Opposed:  Darryl Gaines, 57 Summer S.t, stated he lives next door and he is pleased with the upgrades done to house but the owner knew what he had when he bought the house.  He stated there has been issues with the tenants and there has been “drama” since day 1.   Opposed: Ed Smith, 56 Summer St., lives across the street.  He stated there has been police, fire, and ambulances there a few times.   He doesn’t actually see garage from where his house is. Lisa Nates stated they were opposed at original hearing but after meeting with their attorney (Atty. Gay) they were in favor as long as all the conditions, which were presented by them, were met.  She stated the primary reason they want garage left is because it’s a buffer from the group home next door.  She stated house is For Sale and it was advertised as “3 bedrooms”  but has been changed.  She stated she does not know how he received a Cert of Occupancy without fulfilling all the conditions?  Now he wants to re-neg on the conditions. Well then it should go back to a single family.   Steve F. stated he looked this property when it was for sale a few years ago and he declined because of the garage.  He stated economically it didn’t  make financial sense.   Joe asked if anyone had any objection to taking tree down.  Opposed:  Steve Wyrosdic, 58 Summer St., stated he is opposed to taking garage down.  They are in violation of 3 Bedrooms.  Wayne asked if he was happy with the improvements done to house and he said yes.  But it has been 5 years and all the conditions have not been met.  It was advertised as 3 Bedroom.  Chairman Ackerman stated he informed the ZBA secretary to inform the realtor of the ZBA conditions and it was changed to 2 bedrooms.   Chairman Ackerman asked if they would like to see fencing or landscaping instead of garage?  Wayne asked Atty. Thomas if they were in compliance to the 2 bedrooms and study and Atty. Thomas answers yes.  He stated the realtor made a mistake on the listing.  They currently are NOT occupying a 3 bedroom facility.  Atty. Thomas stated the petitioner did a nice job and spent a lot of money already.  If he is forced to plant arborvitaes it will be another cost incurred to gain nothing.  Wayne understands the petitioner spent a lot of money on the rehab of the house. He has no concern with removing dead tree.  The significant change is the garage.  Chairman Ackerman stated he cannot support the removal of the garage because there was an agreement made. It was suggested perhaps putting fence or plant arborvytes in rear.  Chairman Ackerman cannot believe they got Cert of Occupancy before all the conditions were met.  Atty. Thomas stated that yes the petitioner put a new roof on the garage 5 years ago and since then building materials doubled.   He intended on doing the work but it is just not feasible now.  After some discussion Atty. Thomas asked to amend his request and take out the request for 3 bedrooms.  The Board allowed the amendment.    

Motion made and seconded to grant as Amended with the following conditions:

  • Approve the removal the garage with the replacement of landscaping/fence along the rear of the property subject to approval of the Historic District Commission.  .
  • Approve the removal of the blue spruce tree located on the north side of the property.
 
Vote:  Vieira, Berube, Amaral, Staples, ....... …Yes
Ackerman………………………………………No
Petition Granted.

Case #3284                             Aspen Properties             Prospect Hill St. Property  (I.D. 26-20)                       
                                                                                                                   
For:  A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for the division of one lot into two lots resulting in Lot 1 having 17,941 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 30,000 sq. ft. lot area & 22,250 sq. ft. of dry area) on premise situated on the east side of Prospect Hill Street, known as Assessor’s Reference Map 26, Lot 20, Taunton, Ma. and known as 2 King Philip St (Prop. I.D. 7-41) Raynham, Ma.

For the Petitioner: Atty. John-Paul Thomas, 98 County St., Taunton, Ma.
                                                               
In favor:  Pricilla Milot, 103 Prospect Hill Street, Taunton,Ma.
               Joseph Spagna, 11 Regan Circle, Raynham, Ma.
              Wayne Gayford, 120C Prospect Hill St, Taunton, Ma.
   
Opposed:  Leon Barstad, 8 Regan Circle, Raynham, Ma.
                 Letter from Town of Raynham Highway Dept., - Roger Stolte, 1555 King Phillip St., Raynham, Ma.
                 Brian Barros, 120A Prospect Hill St., Taunton, Ma.  
                 Ron Souza, 20 King Phillip St., Raynham, Ma.
               
Atty. Thomas stated they are here tonight to divide the lot into two lots.  The property is located on the corner of Prospect Hill Street and King Phillip Street and also located in Taunton and Raynham.  They received 2 tax bills but the house is located in Raynham.   They will put new home on lot in Taunton.  Chairman Ackerman asked if they had to go to Raynham for approval and Atty. Thomas didn’t think so, but if he has to he will.  Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Conservation Commission, Raynham Highway Dept. and Leon Barstad.   Atty. Thomas submitted petition signed by 3 abutters in favor.  George asked if he needed to go to Raynham?   Atty. Thomas stated he doesn’t think so.  Opposed:  Brian Barros, 120A Prospect St. stated this is a small property and there is a water problem.  He stated the majority of the property floods, they can practically skate there.  There was a catch basin put in 10 years ago to address water issues.  He stated the property is currently for Sale.  Opposed Leon Barstad, submitted his letter of opposition.  He stated the petitioner knew he had to pay taxes in both towns. He stated the proposed lot does not fit into the neighborhood.  He notified Raynham Planning Board and they won’t get involved because it’s just one house, not a subdivision.  Opposed: Ron Souza, 20 King Philip St., Raynham, Ma.  stated they are proposing a big house on small lot.  Atty. Thomas stated the water problems existed before is client bought the property.    He stated Raynham has sewer and they could possibly tie into that.   Joe asked how they knew about size house and Mr. Souza stated there was a letter sent around.  Joe stated their Engineer will have to see what the Conservation Commission will say.  George asked if they would tie into the existing sewer and water.  Steve F. stated they could tie into the existing house.   

Motion made and seconded to grant as Presented with the following conditions:

  • New house to tie into Raynham’s Sewer System if available.
  • New house must be serviced by Municipal Water.
 
Vote: Moniz, Berube, Amaral, Staples,Ackerman, ....... …Yes
Petition Granted.
   
                                                                                                                                          Meeting adjourned at 8:01 PM

Next meeting is August 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM