Zoning Board of Appeals

5-12-11 mins. CITY OF TAUNTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM (Meeting held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St., Taunton, Ma) Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Amaral, Berube, Medeiros, Staples, Wayslow. Meeting called to order at 5:45 PM Wayne made motion to accept April 14, 2011 minutes, seconded by Joe. All in favor. Summer Schedule – Discussion took place regarding the summer schedule. Possibly re-scheduling July meeting and having no August meeting. Peter made motion to re-schedule July 14th meeting to July 28th no August meeting. Seconded by Troy. All in favor. Update on 272 Winthrop Street Letter from the ZEO regarding fines & court proceedings. Chairman Ackerman explained the process of which the ZBA conducts its meetings. They listen to the petitioner/Attorney, then opposition or in favor and then back to the petitioner to address the opposition. They do not go back and forth. Cont’d Case #3053 Keesey Shores Avenue A Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the re-division of lots that have merged for zoning purposes. Lot 65-26 having 60’ of frontage and lot width (instead of 100’) with 8,828 sq. ft. of lot area and dry area (instead of 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 11,250 sq. ft. of dry area) and Lot 65-27 having 8,308 sq. ft. of lot area and dry area (nstead of 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 11,250 sq. ft of dry area . Requesting a continuance until July and waives the time frame. Motion made and seconded to grant continuance and place on July 28, 2011 agenda. OTHER BUSINESS: Letter from City planner – relative to Fee schedule – increase in fees Discussion took place relative the letter from the City Planner asking the Board to increase 2 fees pertaining to Special Permits requests and non-residential variance requests. Chairman Ackerman stated that at last meeting the Board wanted more information from the City Planner as to his rational why he needs to increase the fees. Chairman Ackerman suggesting compromising and perhaps raising half of what the City Planner is proposing. Chairman Ackerman stated these fees could bring in about $1,000 - $1,500 which could affect the overtime account for the secretary to come to meetings. The secretary comes to meetings, writes minutes and decisions and then the Chairman reviews them. He did understand some Board members don’t think it’s the right time to increase fees. Troy said the City is bleeding the Citizens with the increase in water fees. He thinks it’s a smoke screen and doesn’t think it will affect the overtime account. This is the City trying to balance the budget by raising fees. Troy suggests reducing the fees. Michael stated he too agrees the City is raising all the fees. Chairman Ackerman stated it’s the right thing to do. Peter stated he doesn’t like the fact they threaten to cut the Secretary’s overtime so we will raise fees. Wayne stated this impacts people who want to start business. He stated he would not want to vote on this tonight. Joe was ok with a one-time but there are renewal fees. Peter stated the workload in his office must have slowed down due to the poor economy. Wayne made motion to table vote until next month, seconded by Peter. All in favor. Case #3070 Wells 54 Jackson St. Hearing held on May 12, 2011 For: A Variance from Section 6.2, 6.2 5 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 3 lots without having the req’d. frontage, lot width & shape factor. Lot 1 having 93.70’ of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’) lot 2 having 0 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’) and lot 3 having 20 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’) with a shape factor of 55 (instead of 35) For the Petitioner: Atty. Michael Strojny, 1470 New State Highway, #19, Raynham, Ma. Paul Patneaude, P.E., 198 Crane Ave South, Taunton, Ma. In favor: Herman & Charlene Rebello, 67 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. John Bota, 69 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Paul & Eva Salamon, 63 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Thomas Blaine, 53 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Shirley Brennan, 59 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Opposed: Manny & Joan Faria, 64 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Brian & Sally Mansfield, 60 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Diane Boucher, 131 Van Buren St., Taunton, Ma. David DeMoura, on behalf of Paula Bzdula, 123 Van Buren St., Taunton, Ma. John Linden, 111 Van Buren St., Taunton, Ma. Eric & Maia Femiak, 48 Jackson St., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Strojny states the petitioner owns a parcel of land just under 60,000 sq. ft. and he wishes to keep the existing 2 family and build single family in the rear. He has buyer for the 2-family. The property has 113 feet wide and is 537 feet long. Atty. Strojny states this is a text book variance case with the large lot and limited frontage. The shape of the lot limits what can be done and the back of the lot, as it exists, is useless. Atty. Strojny stated all lots will have the required lot area and the second and third lot will have limited frontage (Lot 3) and lot 2 will have no frontage but access from the 20 foot driveway. The lots will be serviced by Municipal water & sewer. Atty. Strojny stated there will be no negative impact on the neighborhood and there will be no big traffic generated by 2 single family dwellings. Chairman Ackerman asked about the 2 family in front? Atty. Strojny stated he has buyer who lives across the street who will have their daughter & son live there. Wayne asked if the developer buyer for back lots? Atty. Strojny answers no just lot 1, it’s the neighbor across the street and they will buy and have their children live in neighborhood. Atty. Strojny stated that lots in the area are similar and there was another subdivision just a few lots away. This is not out of the ordinary to divided these large lots. Joe asked about Lot 2 and if they have an emergency turnaround? Paul Patneaude, P.E. said no because there will be easement rights. In favor: Herman Rebello, 67 Jackson St. stated he’s infavor. He and his wife, Charlene wish to buy house in front and have their children live there. Tom Blain, 53 Jackson St. stated he knows developer and he is nice a guy and there was division by the Farias years ago and they hade a narrower driveway. Opposed: Brian Mansfield, owns lot in back of his in-laws and he didn’t split it was already separate lot with 12 foot access strip. The proposal is a classic pork chop lot. There is already an existing 2 family house there and there legally is no hardship relating to the shape & size of the lot. Chairman Ackerman stated that it’s up to the Board if they think a hardship exists. Opposed: Diane Boucher, 131 Van Buren St., stated her concerns were noise, fire & emergency access, change in property value and changing the integrity of the neighborhood. Opposed: David DeMoura, rep. Paula Bzdula, 123 Van Buren Street. He stated the submitted plans don’t show the abandoned well and major trees on the lot. He stated he’s a P.E. in Massachusetts. He stated all the lots are not conforming and it’s bad land management. He stated the driveway should be 18 feet wide to accommodate visitors. Also there is a 200 year old tree on the edge of the driveway. He stated there should be cul-de-sac provided and where is the snow going to go? Lot 3 is not a productive common driveway and they already have a shared driveway on right side of the existing 2-family. He is also worried about the water runoff. This leads to further poor land management, no sidewalks, driving running 2 feet from property line. There will be an increase in traffic and hopefully there won’t be anyone who abuses the driveway. He stated he had issues with common driveway and there were issues with the easements and snow removal, threats, etc. He stated this isn’t a win win situation being created. Wayne asked if he had issues with common driveway? Mr. DeMoura answers yes they had issues with the easement which resulted in threats. Wayne stated there are ownership rights, and the way it was written may have been the problem. Wayne asked if this property was located in the Urban Residential District and it was answered yes. Opppsed: Eric & Maria Femiak, 48 Jackson St. direct abutter to driveway. They have enjoyed the open space which has been an asset to the neighborhood. The proposed driveway will only be 2 feet from their property line. There is also a large tree that straddles the property line which is about 70 feet high. They see this has no benefit at all. Wayne asked about the fence and he stated there is a section of low fence for a distance of 50 feet and then a 6 foot fence for a distance of 60 feet. Wayne asked how close the fence was to proposed driveway? Mr. Femiak answers about 20 feet. Chairman Ackerman asked Mr. Femiak if in the future, they are every considering development in back they could have rights from this driveway? It was noted by the Secretary they may need special permit for common driveway for 3 lots or more. Chairman Ackerman was just suggesting the petitioner put condition that the neighboring lot could also use driveway? John Linden, 113 Van Buren St. stated he owns 2 family that abuts this property. He stated he has wet basement and is concerned with increase in noise because you can hear noise from Rte. 138. He stated the area is peaceful and the kids play in that area. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, Water Dept., B.O.H., Fire Dept. and Conservation Commission into the record. Letter from Scott Faria, on behalf of Joan & Manny Faria, and letter from Sally Mansfield. Also petitioner signed by 7 abutters in favor. Paul Patneaude spoke to Cathal O’Brien from the water department regarding his letter and they need 20 feet of area to work but pavement needs to be 15 feet wide. The water & sewer has to be 10 feet apart. The proposed driveway is actually 20 feet wide and will be 15 feet pavement width. After some discussion about tree and who owns what tree it was discovered they were talking about wrong tree. Paul stated they could push driveway over about 2 ½ feet to right to help with pavement width which results in 5 feet on left side. Paul state that would work in moving driveway over 2 ½ feet. Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following conditions:  Shift pavement width of driveway over 2 ½ feet towards property I.D. 39-40 and 39-41.  Restricted to single family dwellings on lots 2 & 3.  20 foot wide No Cut/Vegetation Buffer along the rear property line of Lot 3.  They will need a width of 20 feet to fit the water and sewer, to fit 2@2” water services and 1 @8” sewer main with a manhole to connect into the 2@6’ sewer laterals required.  Hardwired interconnected smoke detectors located throughout proposed single family dwelling (s), 780 CMR 9.0. Carbon monoxide detectors are required to meet M.G.L. 148, sec. 26 F1/2 and 527 CMR 31. A permit for a fire warning must be obtained before a building permit is signed by this office. Vote: Ackerman, Amaral, Medeiros, Wasylow, Berube…….Yes Petition Granted: Troy Medeiros excused at 7:25 PM Case #3071 Co-Operative Productions Inc. 97 Ingell St. Hearing held on May 12, 2011 For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 to allow Office & Service Use (11,660 sq. ft.) in an Industrial District. For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, One Church Green, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Brennan stated Co-Operative Productions purchased property from Mason Box company and they wish to re- locate one of their downtown facility to this location. They will occupy 11,600 square feet and will have 20 employees and 45 clients. They normally work 8 – 4 pm. They have filed with Conservation Commission and they are waiting to see what this board does. Chairman Ackerman asked if this is a non-profit and if so, the Board can waive the fee? Atty. Brennan answers yes. He will submit the Non-Profit paperwork to the office to get reimbursed. Joe asked what condition is the building in? Atty. Brennan stated not too bad. There was note of a fire years ago. Joe stated he remembered this property coming to the Board for something. No one appearing in favor or against petition. Letters from the City planner, B.O.H., Conservation Commission, Fire Dept. and Water Dept. were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to reimburse the filing fee once they provide their non-profit status. All in favor. Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions:   If any type of food is served or prepared, a Taunton Board of Health Food permit must be obtained. If any Hazardous Materials are being used, stored, or generated a Taunton Board of Health Hazardous Materials Control Permit must be obtained.  Fire Suppression System shall be installed throughout the office and service use building according to NFPA-13 & related NRPA standard (Sprinklers)  Fire Alarm Systems installed throughout the office and service use building with automatic notification to the Fire Department (Radio Master Box)  Fire Suppression & Fire Alarm drawings must be submitted for review (two sets) before this department signs a building permit application. Fire Suppression drawings must be stamped by a Mass. Fire Protection Engineer.  Flammable decorative materials & furniture shall conform to 527CMR 21 & 29.  Fire extinguishers installed throughout according to 527CMR 10.02 & NFPA-10.  Dumpster permit required for dumpsters six yards or greater 527CMR 34.03.  The project will require backflow protection for both the domestic and fire lines, the existing water services may need to be replaced based on their age and or condition, and all DPW permits will be required prior to any water turn ons. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Wasylow, Amaral, Staples ....................Yes. Petition Granted: Motion to adjourn meeting at 7:32 PM.