 |
CITY OF TAUNTON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 9, 2009
Members Present: Wasylow, Amaral, Enos, Berube, Medeiros. Joyce present at 7:30 PM. Chairman Ackerman present at 7:17 PM.
Meeting called to order at 6:47PM
Gill made motion to accept minutes of March 12, 2009, seconded by Joe. All in favor.
Cont’d. Case #2947 Mello Realty LLC 232 Broadway
A Special Permit from Section 5.2 to allow the addition of a drive-thru window and order board facilities for a newly constructed Dunkin Donuts restaurant.
Letter from Atty. Gay requesting to withdraw.
Motion made and seconded withdrawl.
Vote: Enos, Amaral, Berube, Medeiros, Wasylow…..Yes
Petition withdrawn.
Case #2953 Santos 41 Union St.
Hearing held on February 12, 2009 & April 9, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the dwelling conversion of a 2 family to a 3-family having 8,276 sq. ft. (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) and having 5 parking spaces (instead of 6 spaces) .
For the Petitioner: Mark Santos, 41 Union St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Mr. Santos stated he’s proposing to change his 2-family to a 3-family by adding apartment in basement. He is also asking the Board to waive 1 parking space. Right now he has room for 6 but they park one in back of another and by the Ordinance that’s considered stacking. Joe asked if this was the dead end of Union Street? Mr. Santos answers yes. Joe asked if there is public parking on both sides? Mr. Santos answers yes there is always parking available. Letter from City Planner, Fire Dept., B.O.H., Conservation Commission were placed on file.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Berube, Enos, Wasylow, Amaral, Medeiros…………….….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2960 Figueiredo 3 First St.
Hearing held on April 9, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the removal of an existing garage and the replacement with a new garage having a 5 foot side setback (instead of 25 feet)
For the Petitioner: Jay Oliveira, representing Norberto Figueiredo, 15 Second St., Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Page 2 of 13 – ZBA Minutes – 4-9-09
Opposition: None
Mr. Oliveira stated they want to knock down the existing garage and replace with a new garage having a larger setback but not the required setback. No one appearing in opposition or in favor. Letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission, B.O.H., Fire Dept. and Water Dept were placed on file.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Berube Amaral, Medeiros ……..Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2961 Day 4 Friend St.
Hearing held on April 9, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the removal of an existing barn and the replacement with a new 16’ x 16’ shed having a 3 foot side setback (instead of 15 feet)
For the Petitioner: David Day, 4 Friend St. Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Mr. Day stated the barn was constructed in 1896 and he wishes to take it down and replace it with a 16 x 16 shed. The barn is falling down and as you can see in the pictures presented to the Board. Mr. Day stated he has done a substantial amount of work on the house since he purchased it. No opposition. Letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission, B.O.H., Fire Dept., Water Dept were read into the record. Wayne commented on a nice job he has done with the improvements to the house.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Wasylow, Enos, Berube Amaral, Medeiros…….Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2959 Sherman 251 Lakeview Ave.
Hearing held on April 9, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 6.3 to allow the removal of existing garage and the replacement with a new garage having two10 foot front yard setbacks (instead of 25 feet).
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Atty. Gay stated the lot is unusual in that is fronts on 3 street, 2 roads are developed and one that is not but a paper road. There is an old existing garage and petitioner wishes to remove it and replace it with a larger one. They will take down the existing garage and canopy and replace it but not going any closer to the property line. Atty. Gay stated the topography restricts the placement of the garage. The house is on a hill and slopes down to Girard Avenue. The new sewer line runs along Lakeview Avenue and an unnamed road which they are seeking to take control of. Girard Avenue is paved to a certain point and Lakeview Avenue has been re-located,
Page 3 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
the whole area has been changed. Atty. Gay stated petitioner own whole area, consisting of several smaller lots. He stated the ordinance would prevent anything new being constructed. This will be an improvement to the whole neighborhood. Wayne asked where the entrance would be to new garage? Atty. Gay answers the front will be facing the interior of the lot. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Fire Dept., Water Dept. and Conservation Commission were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Medeiros, Amaral, Wasylow, Enos, Berube, …………...Yes
Petition Granted:
Case #2957 Scarano Carena Family Trust Anawan St.
Hearing held on April 9, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3 to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on a pre-existing non-conforming lot having 60 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 100 feet) and having 10,483 sq. ft. of lot area (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) and 10,483 sq. ft. of dry area (instead of 11,250 sq. ft.)
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: None
Opposition: None
Atty. Gay stated this lot is the only vacant lot on the street. The property is located off Tremont Street and the property has always been separately taxed. William Lewis, Trustee of Scarano Carena Family Trust, had control of 6, 8 & 10 Anawan Street. One of the heirs lives in Italy and deeded over her interest to Mr. Lewis. The property is serviced by Municipal Sewer & Water. The property has a valid P&S Agreement with a building to construct a modest house. The sale of the lot is for $68,000 which is a reasonable house lot. This will put the lot on the tax roll. The lot is smaller but is in harmony with the neighborhood. Atty. Gay stated that at some point & time the lots merged. Lot 10 was sold in 2007, Lot 6 was sold 6 months later and was taxed as separate lot. However; Atty. Gay stated any buyers wants a guarantee they can build on it so they came for variance. Gill asked what sizes are the lots in the area? Atty. Gay stated Lot 6 is smaller and Lot 10 is of
similar size. Troy stated he grew up in are and the lots are all the same size. Joe too is familiar with area. Joe asked if 10 Anawan Street was the old homestead? Atty. Gay stated #6 was the old homestead. It was noted a portion of the neighbor’s driveway will need to removed. Troy asked if neighbors were aware the lot would be sold? Atty. Gay answers yes. Glen Garfield, contractor will be building small house. It was asked what kind of house? Mr. Garfield answers small New England , 1,488 sq. ft. with 10 x 12 deck in back. It was noted they have to meet the setback requirements. They were proposing a 24 foot wide, 3 bedroom 2 story home. No one appearing in opposition or in favor. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Conservation Commission, Fire Dept., and Water Dept. were read into the record.
Motion made and seconded Grant as Presented:
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Berube Amaral, Medeiros…… .Yes
Petition Granted:
Page 4 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
Case #2958 GTO Realty LLC 43 Worcester St.
Hearing held on April 9, 2009
For: An Appeal of the Building Inspector’s Denial of the issuance of a building permit on property located at 43 Worcester St.
For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma.
Barbour Khan, P.E., Concord Engineering Group, P.A., 23 Osgood St., Windham, N.H.
In favor: None
Opposition: Atty. Marc Antine, representing Joyce Caron, 37 Worcester St.
Taunton, Ma.
Robert Pirozzi, Building Commissioner, City Hall, 15 Summer St., Taunton, Ma
Atty. Edward Roster, representing Joan Desrosiers, 291 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma.
John Medeiros, 14 Short St., Taunton, Ma.
Robert Bianchi, 61 White Pine Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Stanley Johnson, 235 Alfred Lord Blvd., Taunton, Ma.
Dennis & Jennifer O’Keefe, 370 Shagbark Rd., Taunton, Ma
Elizabeth Goslin, 100 Solitude Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Charles Doherty, 121 Solitude Dr., Taunton, Ma
William Tranter, 198 White Pine Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Eric Nichols, 107 Solitude Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Bob Patneaude, 95 Solitude Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Dennis & Ann Marie Berube, 355 Shagbard Rd., Taunton, Ma.
Michele & Can Ozcan, 110 Solitude Dr., Taunton, Ma.
Clark & Candace Lofgren, 4 ½ Worcester St., Taunton, Ma.
Donald Densmore, 4 Worcester St., Taunton, Ma.
Chariman Ackerman apologizes for being late for meeting, it’s the 2nd night of Passover. Atty. Gay stated the Building Commissioner issued a building permit in permit #3785 on October 27, 2008 for alteration and repairs and on December 18, 2008 the Board had 2 appeal cases for the building permit that was issued. The Board voted and the building permit was vacated and revolked. The decision was filed and no appeal was filed. Atty. Gay stated the Board’s reason or overturning the Building Commissioner’s decision to issue the building permit was that the building expansion was over 10% allowed under the ordinance. In light of those statements they re-designed the plans and submitted new plans to the Building Commissioner. The Building Commissioner issued a letter stating
that he is of the opinion that any expansion/alteration would require zoning approval from the ZBA. Letter from the City Planner agreeing that a building permit should be issued. Atty. Gay stated under Section 5.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance it states that you cannot exceed 10% of what? It doesn’t state the building or the whole site? Atty. Gay stated they could have been over the 10% of the building but they have revised the plan and they aren’t. Chairman Ackerman stated, in light of what you are saying, you agree that the 10% is based on the whole site? Atty. Gay stated they didn’t appeal previous denial. Atty. Gay stated the purpose of this petition is they think they are under 10% of the whole property. Chairman Ackerman stated, in essence the 10% is supposed to be based on the whole property. Atty. Gay stated yes. Atty. Gay stated there is no increase in the use, the existing commercial area is 11,173 sq. ft. and the
proposed commercial area is 10,455 sq. ft. which is a decrease. If you add 1,438 sq. ft. in front of the existing building you have 11,893 sq. ft. which isn’t over the 10% allowed. The 10% allowed would be 12,290 sq. ft. The existing building is in danger of falling and they want to eliminate parking in front. Atty. Gay stated even if the Board considered the parking area in front it still comes under the 10%. Atty. Gay cited the Powers Test. Powers vs.
Page 5 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
Building Inspection, Town of Barnstable. The first criteria is if the use is different, and he argues no, the use is coffee shop with drive-up and that’s what’s there now. The proposal is for a Dunkin Donuts with a few seats, and drive-thru window. Second criteria is if the use is different in nature and it’s not it’s a restaurant with the same number of seats and they are only re-locating the parking spaces. Atty. Gay stated he has been there for lunch and its was a very well run business and very busy. Atty. Gay stated the proposed Dunkin Donuts will be a substantial increase in the drive-thru but it’s the same use. The Third criteria is if it will have a different effect on the neighborhood that the previous use? Atty. Gay stated no, it the same use and the building
will need some work. Wayne stated there is a residential dwelling there and free-standing building there. He gave background on property, in 1984 there was a non-conforming craft shop and house, then changed to donut deli barn and then got Special Permit for menu change. In 1987 tried to get Special Permit to expand and create offices in house and that was withdrawn. Then they brought forward the same request and was denied. The drive-thru was put in without permits and then filed for variance to legalize it and window sigs. Wayne stated they have been using the house as early as this year so therefore it’s a mixed use. Wayne stated that there will be a change in the use of the property. Right now it’s mixed use with a commercial use and residential and after it will be all commercial use. Atty. Gay responds by saying they can take the house down and the restaurant can continue even without house. Wayne disagrees. Wayne
started the plans are to raze the house. After the modification is the amount of area going to be the same? Atty. Gay stated the original petition was withdrawn which showed a larger commercial building. This proposal is completely different. Wayne stated he analyzed the property and it has house and has special permit to do the commercial use. He stated this is a residential neighborhood and a commercial use isn’t allowed by right, only by special permit. Atty. Berube stated there is case law stating you can’t increase a use by a Special Permit without going to the ZBA for approval. He referenced Marblehead vs. Rosenthal. He also cited the Powers case and its 3 criteria. Atty. Gay stated they are making the commercial area smaller. As the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting stated the premise is 10% of the property using the shrubbery and drive-thru area. Chairman Ackerman asked how they
calculated the 10%? . Barbour Khan, Concord Engineer Group states he’s very comfortable with the calculations which is 11,893 sq. ft. Chairman Ackerman stated he and the City Planner has difference of opinion on this case. Chairman Ackerman stated the Engineer did not include everything in the calculations. Atty. Gay stated you don’t have to include tree plantings or signage. Atty. Gay stated that Short Street is a 2-way highway with residential subdivisions, Solitude Drive & White Pine Drive. Chairman Ackerman asked how the business is going to get deliveries? How is the truck going to stop? Atty. Gay stated that they have already filed with Mass. Highway and will have to deal with them on that. Chairman Ackerman stated that everything that’s tied into the business, minus the landscaping, should be included in the calculations. Chairman Ackerman pointed out the paved area on the plans
excludes the residence. Chairman Ackerman stated the septic system, holding area, leaching field should be included in the calculations. Chairman Ackerman stated the business could stay in the existing building using the old cesspool? Chairman Ackerman compliments the Building Commissioner is his decision not to issue permit. Mr. Khan stated there are a couple of tanks in back of the building and they went to the Board of Health to get records but wasn’t successful. They would have to comply with the Board of Health regulations relative to restaurant use. Chairman Ackerman if Atty. Gay is accepting the basis that 10% is based on whole property and he cannot see from his City Planning background, that’s it’s 10% he thinks its more like 40-50% of an increase. Atty. Gay stated that the ZBA has never seen a petition for a septic system because you don’t have to come to the Board for that. He’s stated
that’s totally irrevelant and not needed . Atty. Gay stated the Board has changed their minds again. He stated we did exactly what the Board indicated, in scaling down project, staying within the 10% of the renovation of the building and now they say something different. Atty. Gay was very upset and asked that they just vote…. He stated it’s unfortunate that city money is being spent on this. Chairman Ackerman stated this is a public hearing, and everyone will be heard before there is a
Page 6 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
vote. Atty. Gay stated they need to keep an open mind. Opposition: John Medeiros, 14 Short St., stated about 2/10 of a mile from this building and there it’s called Dead Man’s Curve. He applauded the Building Commissioner and admired his great display of honestly at the last meeting. Mr. Medeiros stated he spoke to the City Planner in regards to the DIRB meeting prior to this meeting and was told that they complied with all local regulations. He stated the DIRB was in favor and he thought, the meeting denied the neighborhood to speak o this. The DIRB is a political appointment made up of department heads. This is a small family business and the ZBA in their wisdom deemed that any building that goes in needs to be the exact same footprint. Peter asked, during the DIRB process he
stated he asked for information from who? Mr. Medeiros answers from Mr. Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon brought out plans and stated the City approved this and he was told that there would be no questions from the neighborhood. Mr. Medeiros didn’t like the way he was treated or the serviced that was provided. He was told by the City Planner that all questions need to be in writing. Mr. Medeiros was under the impression that the DIRB was made up of citizens who represent the neighborhood and he was looking for one? Atty. Edward Roster, representing Ms. Joan Desrosiers, Tremont Street stated the area is Rural Residential and it’s the lowest density in the City. He stated, under section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a drinking/eating establishment is not allowed and only permitted by Special Permit/variance from ZBA. He stated this property went from craft shop to Donut Deli Barn, increase in menu, hours expanded and some small changes to the
site. This proposal would be a substantial change in the use of the property. He stated the petitioner were before the Board most recently when the Building Permit was overturned and now they re-configured the plans but didn’t include the septic system. Atty. Roster stated they are way over the 10% expansion and that’s why the Building Commissioner refused to issue permit. He stated they re-configured the plan and didn’t include the septic system. He stated, at the present time, the building isn’t being used at all and seems to be abandoned for some years. He stated the License Commission records indicate that a license hasn’t been issued since 2004. He stated, under the Zoning ordinance, if a variance is not used and is discontinued for a period of more than 24 months then it loses it’s right to operate. Atty. Roster stated they need to come back to the ZBA for a Special Permit/Variance. Atty. Roster
stated that a Dunkin Donuts will generate more traffic than a small family restaurant. He stated Route 140, Worcester Street is very busy street and refers to the traffic study conducted by Greenman-Pedersen. He stated in that study there were 2 problems. The number of parking spaces and no accommodations for delivery vehicles. He stated, at times, the existing Donut Deli Barn created a traffic problem per an old decision. Dunkin Donuts will exasperate the traffic problem. Atty. Marc Antine, representing Joyce Caron, 37 Worcester Street. He stated this is a fatal proposal and the Building Commissioner was correct in not being of the opinion that a permit should be issued. He stated the proposal if for a franchise restaurant which created a massive impact on the neighborhood. He stated they want to change the use that has been there since 1966. He referenced the Powers Test as per Atty. Gay
did. Atty. Antine stated if any of the 3 things fail they it is a change of use. Atty. Antine stated the use is not the same. When the zoning laws went into affect in Taunton it was a craft store. He stated traffic generated from Dunkin Donuts is more of an impact than what is there. Atty. Antine stated the third proponent in the powers test is if the resulting use is not different on kind of the neighborhood. He argues yes it’s different. Atty. Antine state a mere increase in business use by itself does not kick in but if traffic was a substantial change it would. Atty. Antine stated under the 10% rule you have a pre-existing non-conforming use and the zoning ordinance states if you want to extend or alter it you can only do it up to 10% without ZBA approval. Atty. Antine stated one of the area they included in their calculations is the drive-thru and you can’t include that because if was subject of a
variance, therefore not a pre-existing non-conforming use. Atty. Antine reference case law Mendes vs. Bd. Of Appeals of Barnstable. He doesn’t, in his opinion, include anything that was approved by a special permit and call it a “pre-existing non-conforming use”. So you can’t expand that. Atty. Antine stated he hasn’t heard any evidence relative to the existing building conforming to the 65% re-construction rule. He saw pictures of a barn and
Page 7 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
asked do they even meet that requirement? Joyce Caron, 37 Worcester Street stated she has lived since 1966 and it’s a very country area. There was little traffic and the neighborhood change a little when the donut deli Barn went in. She testified they had 6-7 parking spaces in front and when they first opens they used back out onto Worcester Street. She has used the drive-thru window which was very slow, hardly every used. Wayne asked if the building has always been there? Ms. Caron answers yes. Joe asked Ms. Caron if the petitioner has every contacted her? Ms. Caron answers no. Robert Pirozzi, Building Commissioner stated he was the one who issued the original permit and he admits he only looked at the building. Now he has received advice from different inspectors and he is of the
opinion they he needs to look at the entire site. He feels he is unable to issue building permit until they get ZBA approval. Chairman Ackerman thanked Mr. Pirozzi for his honesty. Robert Bianchi, 61 White Pine Drive opposed. His concern is safety for the school children. He state peak hours are the same hours when the school buses pick up children. He stated there has been a few accidents and there is a dip in the road. Several years ago this might not have been so bad but with the houses I the immediate area he doesn’t think it’s good. He stated the Industrial Park entrance is down the road. Opposed: Stanley Johnson, 235 Alfred Lord Blvd., there was a hit & run accidence just last week. He asked what they are going to do? Chairman Ackerman stated they are going to raze house and landscape, pave and make it a parking lot. Dennis O’Keefe, 370 Shagbard Rd. stated the building is a big change. Elizabeth Goslin, 100 Solitude Drive stated there are a lot more children in
the area and this is a very busy street. What’s going to happen when the children in the area start driving. She fears for her children, ages 210, 17 & 15. Charles Doherty, 121 Solitude Dr. stated his quality of life will change if this goes in. He stated his neighborhood is like family, they babysit for each other. He asks the Board to look at the little guys, the neighborhood and keep it a safe area. William Tranter, 198 White Pine Dr. states it’s a nice neighborhood and this would be a very different type of business. The proposal is for a chain restaurant which does a lot of advertising. He stated more people will be more likely to stop for Dunkin Donuts then the little family restaurant. He stated his son is in 6th grade and has to cross the street for school bus. This would change the quality of life for the neighborhood. He stated no one has contracted any neighborhood
and everything is being done back door route, legally. Eric Nichols, 107 Solitude Drive asked the Board to think of all the Dunkin Donuts in the City and you will notice there is a traffic signal…. For a reason. Letters from Dennis & Ann Marie Berube, 355 Shagbard Rd., Jennifer O’Keefe, 370 Shagbark Rd., Michele & Can Ozcan, 110 Solitude Dr., Clark & Candace Lofgren, 4 ½ Worcester Street, and Ronald Densmore, 4 Worcester St. opposed. Bob Patneaude, 95 Solitude Drive opposed. He stated, Mass Highway has issued a curb cub for this site. He went to the DIRB and was told he wasn’t allowed to speak and to sit down. He was told all his comments were to be in writing. He then handed in is questions and haven’t heard any response as of this date. He stated this site needs a full traffic study done as part of their DIRB approval. He was told by Kevin Scanlon that all comments had to be
put in writing. Joe stated he is aware of how the DIRB works and in all fairness, do everything by the book. Chairman Ackerman states this isn’t the place to talk about the DIRB and pointed out that Mayor Crowley was present and heard all the concerns. Atty. Gay stated the City Planner didn’t create the DIRB, it’s in the Zoning Ordinance and he follows it. The City Planner is an intelligent young man and the City should have more employees like him. He stated it’s unfair to attack him and the City should be very lucky to have a knowledgeable man. Atty. Gay stated he doesn’t agree with the City Planner all the time but he respects him. Atty. Gay stated the City Planner did nothing wrong, he only follows the rules that are in place. Atty. Gay stated it hasn’t been 2 years since the restaurant was in use. He stated it’s been about a year since they been open. Atty. Gay stated that
Atty. Antine stated the drive-thru can’t be counted. Atty. Gay stated the 65% rule was submitted and approved by the Building Commissioner. They submitted detailed plans and they complied with the 65%. Atty. Gay stated that Ms. Caron testified about the neighborhood. She didn’t let the Board know that her and her husband built a lot of the houses in the neighborhood
Page 8 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
by selling their land. He agrees things changed. Atty. Gay stated that the Building Commissioner testified at last meeting admitting he was wrong and not looking a whole site and he appreciates his honestly. Atty. Gay stated there was nothing about this project that has been “backdoor”. They have done everything by the book. Atty. Gay stated that they were told don’t bother making an offer because the neighbors have their minds set. He stated we didn’t sneak anything through. Peter asked Atty. Gay who told him don’t even bother with the neighbors? Atty. Gay couldn’t remember the name but he thinks everything already has their minds make up. He asked Pamela Gregory about the renewal of license? She stated they changed the name, from Donut & Deli Barn
to dba Donut Barn. They have been licensed up until a year ago. Chairman Ackerman asked the Secretary to check with the license commission on any name change. Chairman Ackerman stated the City Planner is an advisory to the Board and sometimes the Board agrees with his opinion and sometimes not. Chairman Ackerman stated he went to school learned planning one way and he learned another way. Chairman Ackerman stated he takes the City Planner’s advice under consideration. Chairman Ackerman acknowledged that the City Planner is an intelligent man and he knows he tries to be fair. Letters from the City Planner, Water Dept., Conservation Commission, B.O.H., and Fire Dept. were read and placed on file. Chairman Ackerman stated a No vote means upholding the Building Commissioner’s decision and a Yes vote overturns his decision. Wayne stated he analyzed the whole thing and he thinks they are changing the
whole site by a vehicle of a denial of a building permit. They need a Special Permit or Variance for the expansion or change of use to entirely commercial. Based on all the evidence they are far beyond the scope and magnitude of the proposal. He stated he was voting to support the Building Commissioner. Chairman Ackerman stated his land use planning taught him similar background and he thinks they are circumventing the zoning laws.
Motion made and seconded Grant Appeal:
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Berube Amaral, Ackerman………….NO
BUILDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION UPHELD.
Appeal Denied:
Case #2951 Wells 34 ½ Briggs St.
Hearing held on February 12, 2009 & April 9, 2009
For: A Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 6 lots having no frontage (instead of 100’) no lot width (instead of 100’) and a shape factor of 38 for Lot 4 (instead of 35) Access is via the existing 20 foot driveway.
For the Petitioner: Atty. Michael Strojny, 1470 New State Highway, Raynham, Ma.
Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Avenue South, Taunton, Ma.
In favor: Patricia Kenyon, 409 Somerset Ave., Taunton, Ma.
Bob Lane, 66 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Lewis Rose, 24 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Rob Dennen, 40 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Maryann McNeil, 70 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Joseph Costa, 23 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
Page 9 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
Jeffrey Henriques, 30 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Thomas & Dorothy Smith, 34 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Jason Motta, 26 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Opposition: James & Lola Medeiros, 24 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
Cheryl Perry, 13 Knight St., Taunton, Ma.
Fred Hovestadt, 62 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Mary Ann Malo, 20 Briggs St, Taunton, Ma.
John Reis, 36-38 Briggs St., Taunton, Ma.
Petition signed by abutters.
Wayne Berube disclosed that he represented Mr. & Mrs. DaCosta during the foreclosure process and has to recuse himself.
Joseph Amaral discloses that he has relative who is an abutter and recuses himself.
Atty. Strojyn stated his client filed an application with the ZBA for the creation of 6 separate lot with duplexes located on each lot. Atty. Strojny stated Mr. Wells has met with a majority of the neighbors and they are in favor. The lots will be serviced by Water & Sewer. Atty. Strojny stated there is an emergency turnaround for fire apparatus. The property is 4 ½ acres and on the new plans submitted this even shows 2 acres not being build on due to wetlands. Atty. Strojny stated all the proposed homes will be outside the wetlands. Gill asked where the hardship that is related to the shape and size of the lot? Atty. Strojny stated there is a financial hardship if the owner were unable to develop and sell. He purchased the 2 family at a foreclosure and to make it feasible they have to have
proposal. Gill asked how much did he purchased the property for? Atty. Strojny stated the deed was included with the proposal. It was noted the purchase price was $121,000 for the 2-family. Atty. Strojny stated the amount of money that needs to be put into the renovations warrants the variance. Chairman Ackerman stated he wasn’t in favor of original proposal with duplexes and he is glad the applicant is working with the neighbors, showing good faith. He thought it was ludachrist at the time to put all those duplexes in back, now some land is going to be conveyed to abutters. Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Ave. South stated the hardship is directly related to the size and shape of the lot. The property consists of 4.5 acres with 20 feet of frontage. All the proposed lots meet the 15,000 sq. ft. min. lot size but cannot meet the frontage or lot width requirement. There is wetlands and river to the west and there is no other
way to access the property. In favor: Jeff Henriques, 30 Briggs St., stated he’s in favor because the property has been vacant for a couple of years now it’s
Page 10 of 13 – ZBA Minutes 4-9-09
an eyesore. He would be in favor of a decent looking homes back there. In favor: Lewis Rose, 24 Briggs St. has been there for 40 years and it was once a farm, with all kinds of animals. He stated it would increase the value of our homes with new houses in the area, and in his opinion, would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. In favor: Robert Lane, 66 Briggs St. stated there isn’t going to be any houses directly in back of his property but he knows the developers and he thinks he to be of a honest guy and he is in favor of what he was told by Mr. Wells. He made concessions and agreed to convey land if developer doesn’t follows thru then he will lost his trust. He is in agreement with new plan. Troy asked Mr. Lane if he has any doubt that the property would be sold? Mr.
Lane answers he doesn’t believe that to be so and if it was he would lost his trust. In favor: Rob Dennen, 40 Briggs St. stated he likes new plan showing changes from duplex to single family homes. He stated he would be most affected by it. Troy asked if he was happy and satisfied? Mr. Dennen answers yes, and he would like to see the drainage and perhaps some fencing? Mr. Dennen stated Mr. Wells promised some thing to neighbors? Troy asked what things? Mr. Dennen stated reducing it to 4 single family, fencing, and fixing drainage. In favor: Jason Motta, 26 Briggs St. stated the original plans affected his lot but new plans don’t affect him now. He did not like duplexes but now he’s ok with new proposal. In favor: Mary Ann McNeil, 52 Briggs St. along with her mother, Doris Roderick, 52 Briggs St. are in favor. She is ok with new plans along with proposed fencing and water problem solution. She
stated there is an adequate turnaround behind her house. Mike Bledesdoe, 34 Briggs St. along wit his mother, Dorothy Smith stated they were opposed to duplexes but are OK with new plans as long as he complies with it. He stated he was told there would be fencing. He stated there is a garage right about 10 feet from property line? It was noted that a paved driveway would be better than the existing dirt one and some fencing. In favor: Joseph Costa, 23 Knight St. also was against duplexes but is ok with new plan. He stated he would like to keep in its natural state but he knows something is bound to go there. He stated applicant is proposing to convey some property to abutters which is better for some people. He stated there is a pond at the end of his neighbor’s property. OPPOSED: Stuart Clark, P. E., 124 Padelford St., Berkley, Ma. he presented petition signed by approx. 66 people in opposition. It was
noted there are names on petition opposed who are now in favor of NEW plans. Mr. Clark suggested and the new plans re-circulated to city departments comments since the plans have changed. He read letter of opposition into record. He stated this is an illegal subdivision, no sidewalk, no drainage? Chairman Ackerman stated they can put conditions on approval like they have in the past when they have approved a common driveway for a couple of houses. They will consider all the facts. Troy asked Mr. Clark if he saw a new plan? Mr. Clark stated yes just this evening. Letters from the City Planner, Fire Dept., Conservation Commission, B.O.H. were read into the record. Opposed:
Page 11 of 13 – ZBA Minutes – 4-9-09
James Medeiros, 24 Knight St. stated he is concerned with drainage about possible additional runoff? It was told they have comply with what the City Engineer recommends. It was asked if the drainage problem was solved would be opposed still? Mr. Medeiros answers yes. Mr. Clark wanted to make a few more statement but was declined by the Chairman. Chairman Ackerman stated the policy is not to go back and forth and he already spoke. Opposed: Lila Medeiros, 24 Knight St., stated there is pond back there with fish. She submits pictures of flooding. She has 9 acres and there is a large wetland back there. Opposed: Mary Ann Malo, 20 Briggs St. stated her greatest concern is houses 12 thru 20 and there is running spring water behind those houses? Doreen Kane, 19 Knight states
she has 2 pumps running all water long and she is very concerned and opposed to the 6 houses. She stated there are plenty of houses for sale in Taunton. She did state if the water problem was solved this she would not be opposed. Opposed: John Reis, 36-38 Briggs St. is concerned with sewerage, height restrictions. He doesn’t want to see skyscrapers in the back. He has concerns with privacy and water issues. Opposed: Cheryl Perry, 13 Knight St. stated the new plan is better but wanted all to know they used to skate on pond out there. She had to go to conservation for her pool and the driveway is very narrow. But her major concern is water. Opposed: Fred Hovestadt, 62 Briggs St. stated no one has been to his house to speak to him or his wife and she is always home. He is opposed if houses are in back of him. He hasn’t seen the plans yet? Atty. Strojny stated the water issues he will refer to the
Engineer to comment. He presented letters from Patti Kenyon, 409 Somerset Avenue and James Sauro, 28 Briggs St. in support. Troy asked Atty. Strojny about the new plans and asked if they needed to go back to city departments for comments? Atty. Strojny answers, in his opinion, no because the driveway hasn’t changed. Troy asked when the plans were changed? Atty. Strojny answers after meeting with neighbors on Feb. 9, 2009. Gill asked who will be responsible for the maintenance of the one driveway providing access for 5 houses? Atty. Strojny stated there would be a homeowner’s association and there would be. The document would be made up prior to building and with a minimum of 30 years. They would be selling to 5 different people and they would need to be made aware of the maintenance of driveway, plowing, sealing, etc. Troy stated he thought this was a good idea but since they have changed plans he thinks the
City Departments should review new plans. He stated he thought, in his opinion, the Attorney representing client is making things up and going along with what we are suggesting. Troy stated if he were to vote on this tonight he would be voting NO. Several Board members agreed and suggested continuance and having more information submitted. How are they going to deal with visitor parking, water flow, proposed fencing. Can they have full basements with the water table? Troy stated he didn’t’ want the houses to be like “Hart Street” skyscrapers. John agreed Hart Street houses are too high. Paul state d if they
wanted full basements they would have to be elevated. Paul stated they would have to conduct soil tests which is not normally done at this step in the process. He stated they would supply all that information to the Planning Board. Paul stated we will not make it any worse than what is there now. Troy again stated the presentation was being make up as we go along. Paul stated we will discuss the drainage issues with the applicant. Chairman Ackerman stated the Board can ask for anything. It was suggested giving them the option of continuing until March or April. Attorney Strojny he will be out of the State for March so he asks for April. It was stated the April meeting will be on April 9th and it’s a Jewish Holiday so Dennis might not be present.
APRIL 9, 2009
Atty. Strojny presented letter from Patricia Kenyon, owner of 409 Somerset Avenue in favor. Atty. Strojny stated that we met 2 months ago and they have since met with neighbors on Somerset Avenue and Knight Street. Paul Patneaude, P.E., submitted new plans dated March 19, 2009. Paul stated they tried to address all the neighbors concerns as well as the Board’s concerns. He submitted drainage report showing 100 year flood plain. They will be putting in detention basin to control the runoff which will reduce the peak flow. The puddling will also be alleviated. They will provide fencing on the rear of the property abutting Bob Lane. Paul stated the plans shows 4 cars on each lot and Atty. Strojny submitted draft copy of a homeowner’s association. Paul stated they met with neighbors on
2 different occasions. One with the Somerset Avenue residents and one with the Knight Street residents. Paul stated the Briggs Street residents really didn’t have any issues. He stated someone initially stated they didn’t’ want duplexes but they have changed to single family houses on new lots. Paul stated they have offered abutters some property to ensure them that nothing will be built on there. Paul stated the driveway width is adequate and there will be low volume of traffic. He stated on Briggs Court, which is down the street, is only 20 feet wide with 8 homes on that roadway. He stated they will have to go to the P.B. and they have approved one only 14 feet wide on Field Street recently and they have 15 feet wide. Paul stated in Dighton they have in their rules & regs. 20 feet wide is acceptable for roadway. Paul stated that the City Engineer confirmed the fact that emergency vehicles will have room.
Chairman Ackerman asked if this is approved, the land shown on the new plans will be conveyed to the abutters. Paul answers yes, that was a result of the neighborhood meetings. In favor: Bob Lane, 66 Briggs St. commended the petitioner for working with neighbors and he thinks will be an improvement to the neighborhood. He stated Mr. Wells has treated them fairly and did an admirable job in portraying the neighbor’s wishes. Mary Ann McNeil, 70 Briggs St. also in favor. She commended the applicant and his engineer and has no objections. Jeff Henriques, 30 Briggs St. also in favor. He stated this
Page 13 of 13 – ZBA Minutes – 4-9-09
would be an improvement to the neighborhood. In favor: Joseph Costa, 23 Knight Street, stated the catch basins addresses his concerns and the plans look good as presented. He wasn’t happy with the duplexes but now is ok with single family dwellings. Opposed: Lola Medeiros, 20-24 Knight St. stated she asked questions about the house styles at the meeting and wasn’t given answer. She stated there will be 5 feet from the pond to these house lots. She stated the pond is 30 feet deep and she thinks it should be fenced in. She stated people go back there to fish and she thinks it’s a safety hazard. She would like to see a fence. She stated people have trespassed and released horses from her barn. Peter asked why is she asking petitioner to put up fence and why doesn’t
she? She answers she has 6 foot chain link fence. Chairman Ackerman asked if they would be willing to put up fencing along parcel B? Paul stated there is access from Briggs Street to pond and it wouldn’t matter much. Peter stated it would be beneficial to have houses there to possibly prevent any trespassing. Chairman Ackerman stated they will need to meet with all the setbacks. Paul stated each house will have to be approved by the Conservation Commission. At that time abutters within 100 feet with get notified. Atty. Strojny stated the petitioner is offering Parcel A,B, B & D to be conveyed to abutters or their successors as per the plans. Letters from the Conservation Commission, Engineer, Board of Health, City Planner were read into the record. Atty. Strojny stated the association documents are pretty standard and they have enforcement powers.
Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following conditions:
1. Establish a condo association as presented.
2. Convey land to abutters as shown on plans dated November 10, 2008 modified thru March 19, 2009
VOTE: Enos, Wasylow, Medeiros, Joyce, Ackerman……………..Yes
Petition Granted:
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM.
| |
