Zoning Board of Appeals

3-8-12 mins. CITY OF TAUNTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 8, 2012 at 5:30 PM Members Present were: Joseph Amaral, Acting Chairman, Peter Wasylow, Steven Vieira, Estele Borges, Troy Medeiros. Wayne Berube present at 5:33 PM. and Dennis Ackerman present at 6:56 pm. Meeting opens at 5:30 pm. Troy made motion, seconded by Peter, to request the City Planner to submit the fees collected for Hart/County Street intersection improvements and what has been used so far. Cont’d. Case # 3112 Whittenton Mills Redev. LLC 437 Whittenton St. A Special Permit from Section 5.2 and a Variance from Section 7.4 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the modification of existing mill buildings for use as an Assisted Living Facility in a Business District with a maximum height of 56 feet and 4 stories (instead of 40’ maximum & 3 stories) Letter from Atty. Gay requesting a continuance until May meeting and waiving the time frame on which to act on this proposal. Motion made and seconded to Grant continuance until May. Vote: Medeiros, Borges, Vieira, Amaral, Wasylow……Yes Petition continued to May meeting. Case # 3114 Santos 135 Powhattan Dr. Hearing held on March 8, 2012 For: A Special Permit from Section 7. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Renewal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit and a Variance from Section 7.9 #4 to allow the accessory to be over the max. 800 sq. ft. (proposal 816 sq. ft.) For the Petitioner: Susan Santos, 135 Powhattan Dr.,E. Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Mrs. Santos stated they are renewing the accessory dwelling unit that her parents are still residing in. She stated nothing has changed they are still there. The Board didn’t have any questions. No One in favor or opposed. Letters from the B.O.H., Conservation Commission and City Planner were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Vote: Amaral, Vieira, Borges, Wasylow, Medeiros.................Yes Petition Granted: Case # 3118 Liberty & Union Realty Trust Short St. Hearing held on March 8, 2012 For: A Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one parcel into 2 parcels and 1 non-buildable parcel. One lot having 0 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 150’ frontage & 100’ of lot width) and being accessed by a common driveway, and the other lot having 63’ of frontage & 50 feet of lot width (instead of 150’ frontage & 100’ of lot width) on premises situated on the Easterly side of Short Street, known as Assessor’s Reference Property I.D. 28-62. For the Petitioner: Atty. William Rounds, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Virginia Young, 1092 Norton Ave., Taunton, Ma. Richard Castro, 60 Short St., Taunton, Ma. Paul Whiffen, 79 Short St., Taunton, Ma. Charles Crowley, 110 Worcester St., Taunton, Ma. John McGrath, 75 Short St., Taunton, Ma. Acting Chairman Joseph Amaral informed Atty. Rounds that there is only 4 members voting because Wayne & Estele excused themselves. Atty. Rounds stated he is aware of that and ask to move forward. He stated this parcel is 16 acres with 64 feet of frontage. The original intent was to develop as a conventional subdivision but and a lot of the land is not good. The Three Mile River is to the rear and there is no sewer available. They are only trying to develop 2 lots out of this large parcel. Per the City Planner’s request they combined frontage with Lot 3 and will have access easement for rear parcel which is not buildable. Atty. Round states due to the soils conditions, location of wetlands and the topography a hardship exists and the Board should grant relief. There will be a minimum of 2 lots, each having 60,000 sq. ft. with adequate access via a shared driveway along the 50 foot strip. This will allow petitioner to make some use of the land. Joe asked if it has been to Conservation Commission yet. Atty. Rounds answers no but in the past we know where the wetlands are. He stated they have Form A on Lots 1-2 on Short Street and they were delineated. Atty. Rounds pointed out that they are asking tonight for 2 additional lots out of this acreage. Joe stated he did receive phone calls regarding this. Atty. Rounds stated that due to the soil conditions and wetlands it doesn’t make economic sense to develop. They would like to have 2 lots which will be less of an impact to the surrounding properties. Opposition: Virginia Young, 1092 Norton Ave. stated she wrote letter 5 years ago regarding these same issues and she read that into the record tonight. She pointed out the property only has 64 feet of frontage, had massive wetlands on it, and it’s of critical environmental concern and these are 4 of the neighbors are the original owners from the homes Mozzone built more than 40 years ago. She stated there is a lot of information being left out, she mentioned a residential covenant. Opposed: Rich Castro, 60 Short St. He has lived there for 40 years and on a number of occasions seen backhoes attempting to make a successful perk. He necessary doesn’t oppose to having 2 house lots across from him but wants it done right. He’s confused at the design of the lot and why are they leaving landlocked lot in back? Do they have some ulterior motive? He suggests combining the big lot in back to the 2 lots and he thinks the Conservation Commission should view land. He stated lot 4 almost 40 years ago where the Moonbeam and the Gathering was he protested to conservation of which they truckloads of fill in from Universal trucks. Joe stated that lot was never before the ZBA because it didn’t need any zoning relief. Parcel B is protected and it has to go to the Conservation Commission. Opposed: Paul Whiffen, 79 Short St.. stated this land was ruled by the NHPC in 2007 to have endangered species. He questions the deed? He stated according to MESA there was to be no segmentation according to Amanda Veno. Mr. Whiffen pointed out that the plans are misleading because there was land swamp with Mr. Anderson and if all issues were resolved in 5 years the project will be given back to its original owner. He questioned who owned what? He was in the appeal for over a year. Charles Crowley, 110 Worcester St. also opposed. The brook runs along the Mr. Castro affecting his property. There was 2 Form A lots and in 1988 there was a zoning change that made this Rural Residential. He stated they are trying to squeeze lots, if this was a reasonable request he could see how it might be approved. He can see the Board granting a reasonable request but this is cramming lots in with no frontage. He stated water comes down from Woodward Estates and there are all rocks in back resulting in no perks. He stated, in his opinion, the proposal is not reasonable and it would be a hardship on neighbors. Opposed: John McGrath, 75Short St. said they are slowly chipping away at land. Attt. Rounds address the oppositions concerns. He stated he wasn’t involved prior and there is a deed restricted and it ‘s shown on plans. There is a buffer along Lot 3 & Lot 4 and the property they want to develop are not near the buffer area. He agreed it doesn’t make sense to develop as conventional subdivision because of natural heritage and the economics. They are proposing 2 additional house lots on 16 acres which he thinks is not unreasonable. Atty. Rounds stated there is adequate frontage for this low density use of the property. He agreed the property does have issue but this is a reasonable request for the petitioner to be able to make some use of the land. He stated the other lots abutters were referring to were Form A lots which total 4 houses on over 20 acres. He stated most of the complaints have to do with the wetland and they will have to go to Conservation Commission. He stated there was a land swap with Mr. Anderson and that agreement has been extended by a handshake. He stated he didn’t believe they had to go to Mass. Highway for a residential use. Letters from the B.O. H., Conservation Commission, City Planner, were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented. Vote: Amaral, Wasylow,Medeiros, Vieira ................Yes Petition Granted Case # 3115 Camara 63 Plain St. Hearing held on March 8, 2012 For: A Variance from Section 6.2 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 4-family use on a lot having 11,963 sq. ft. (instead of 43,560 sq. ft. lot area & dry area) with 66.76’ of frontage (instead of 125’) with 71’ of lot width (instead of 100’) 17’ front setback, 4’ side setback on west side and 32’on east side for 3 unit building (instead of 40’) and 28’ side setback on east & 31’ side setback on west side and a 10’ rear setback for the single unit building, and a Variance from Section 6.2 to allow 2 dwellings on one lot. For the Petitioner: Jose Camara, 63 Plain St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: Petition signed by 56 Abutters in favor. Opposed: None Mr. Camara stated in 1995 he made an apartment in the garage for himself to live. He made minor updates and if he had known he needed permits he would have obtained them. He received letter from the ZEO and is now legalizing the garage as a living unit. He submitted photos and the Board commended him for his beautiful property. Petition signed by abutters in favor or opposed. Letters from the B.O.H., Conservation Commission and City Planner were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Vote: Amaral, Vieira, Borges, Wasylow, Medeiros.................Yes Petition Granted: Cont’d. Case # 3054 Modification St. Germain 342 Winthrop St. Hearing held on March 8, 2012 For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a modification of a recently approval Special Permit for a restaurant with a drive-thru For the Petitioner: Atty. William Rounds, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma. John DeSousa, P.E., Sea-Coast Consulting LLC, 115 Broadway, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Rounds stated this is a modification to a previously approval for the drive-thru. The original building with the drive-thru was located furthest back from roadway and now it’s closer to road. The design is better and they moved the drive-thru about 50 feet with plenty of room for cars to cue. During original hearing Mr. Joyce, former ZBA member did bring safety concern up for design and this is better design. They also turned the retail building around and pushed back resulting is less blacktop. Atty. Rounds stated this is a reasonable request and asks the Board to grant it. The Board asked Atty. Rounds what he paid for modification fees and he answers $750 same as original fees. No One in favor or opposed. Letters from the B.O.H., Conservation Commission and City Planner were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Vote: Amaral, Vieira, Borges, Wasylow, Medeiros.................Yes Petition Granted: Case # 3116 Emond 1003 Middleboro Ave. Hearing held on March 8, 2012 For: A Variance from Section 6.25 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to the division of one lot into two lots, Lot 1 having 149.29 ft. frontage (instead of 150’) with 34,728 sq. ft. lot area & dry area (instead of 60.000 sq. ft. lot area & 43,560 sq. ft. dry area) and 7’ side setback for shed & garage on east side (instead of 25’) Lot 2 having 20 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 150’ frontage & 100’ lot width) and a shape factor of 40 (instead of 35) For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, One Church Green, Taunton, Ma. Paul Patneaude, P.E., Earth Services Corp., 198 Crane Ave. So., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Jamie Pugh, 385 So. Precinct St. E. Taunton, Ma. Daniel Menard, 273 So. Precinct St. E. Taunton, Ma. Atty. Brennan stated the property has 169’ of frontage and 94,728 sq. ft. and the house is tucked up on the northwest of the property. They are proposing to cut out the existing home and leave 20 feet of frontage for back lot. The proposed lot will be consistent with the neighborhood and there is water available and on-site septic. Wayne asked if they will be meeting all the setbacks? Atty. Brennan explains this house was condemned by City and they built new house. Wayne asked if Mrs. Emond resides at house and who will live on new lot? Atty. Brennan stated daughter may live on new lot. Peter asked if was aware the City Planner recommends denial and there is no hardship. Atty. Brennan disagrees and states the size of the lot, location of the existing house is the hardship. Opposed: Jamie Pugh, 285 S. Precinct St., stated he had concerns with flooding on his property and was wondering if they would be filling in property? Right now his property is dry and wants to keep it that way. Peter asked if the brook was closeby and he answers yes. Opposed: Daniel Menard, 273 So. Precinct St., had concerns with width of driveway and water problem. Atty. Brennan stated the water runoff can be graded in the southerly direction. There is a shallow pond and they can grade Lot 2 to not add any more surface water. They could also pull driveway over a little to stay away from abutting property. Wayne asked where would the house be located? Atty. Brennan estimated the house may go where it’s marked on plans “RR”. Paul Patneaude, P.E., stated on lot 2 there is squiggly line the house can on in that general where it’s currently lawn. Peter stated there is a drainage easement across South Precinct Street in back of properties. Mr. Pugh stated the petitioner’s garage is underwater and his circular horseshoe has a lot of water. Francis Emond, stated he has lived there 38 years and yes it did flood once because there is no natural drainage on Viking Street. He put sand bags in front of house and the water broke through and came in on driveway. Letters from the Conservation Commission, City Planner, Fire Dept., B.O.H. were read into the record. Estele had concerns with the narrowness of the driveway. Several Board members had concerns with the water runoff and the narrowness of the driveway. Wayne asked if there would be any trees/fencing separating houses? Atty. Brennan answers there are some trees but there is no distinct separation. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented with the following conditions:  City Engineer to approve grading and on-site drainage for rear lot.  Place house along the west side of the property line.  Grade lot away from So. Precinct Street. Vote: Amaral, Borges, Wasylow, Berube, ...............No Vieira……………………………………………… Yes Petition Denied: Case # 3117 Fontes 52 Floral St. Hearing held on March 8, 2012 A Variance from Section 7.8 & 7.8.4 to allow the dwelling conversion of a 2 family to a 3-family on a lot having 13,050 sq. ft. (instead 15,000 sq. ft.) and within 5 years of receipt of a bldg. permit for an addition. For the Petitioner: Joseph Figueiredo, representing Dinis Fontes, 52 Floral St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: John Thomas, 59 Church St. Taunton, Ma. Opposed: None Mr. Figueiredo is representing his brother-in-law. He purchased the property in October 2011 and was under the impression they had 17,800 sq. ft. according to the accessory’s information on line. It has been used in the past as a 3-family. The owner wanted to convert after he just had an addition put on and at that point was informed the lot is actually only 13,050 sq. ft. Mr. Figueiredo stated it was used as a 3-family for long time ago. Dennis asked how was it marketed? Mr. Figueiredo stated it was listed as 2 family but they looked at assessor’s map and thought they could convert because they had enough lot area. Mr. Figueiredo stated they recently put addition on and the City Planner requested a surveyed plan and that’s when they found out the lot size. Dennis stated it was advertised by the realtor as a 2-family and there was a plot plan prepared and that should have indicated the lot size. Mr. Figueiredo stated for the past 5 years it hasn’t been used as a 3-family. Wayne stated in the application there are TMLP records indicating 3 family. Estele asked when the plot plans was done and Mr. Figueiredo answers he thinks in October. It was brought to his attention that it stated 13,050 sq. ft. on those plans. He stated there was 3 bathrooms and they will be complying with all fire code sprinklers regulations. In favor: John Thomas, 59 Church St., stated he testified that the house has been used for 3 family for years, but not within the last 5-6 years. He knew the Silveira family well and he has no objections to it being a 3 family. Letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission, Fire Dept., and B.O.H. were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Vote: Amaral, Vieira, Borges, Berube, Ackerman, .....................Yes Petition Granted: Case # 3119 Burek Mozzone Blvd & 36 Allison Ave.(Prop.ID. 107- 52 & 107-53) Hearing held on March 8, 2012 For: A Variance from Section 8.5 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow solar panels in the front yard. For the Petitioner: Arthur Borden, P.L.S., 302 Broadway, Raynham, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Mr. Borden states the property is vacant and they are proposing to put ground mounted panels which fronts on Allison Avenue. He states under the zoning ordinance solar panels are treated as accessory for setback purposes. There will be solid fencing all around and the landscaping can be reduced by 50% by the DIRB. No one in favor or opposed. Letters from the B.O.H., Conservation Commission and City Planner and Fire Dept. were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Petition Granted: Estele brought up the fact that the modification case heard tonight had to pay the normal fees because there is no separate fee in the fee schedule for modification. The Board had discussion on whether or not there should be a fee or perhaps a modified fee for these kinds of filings. Estele made motion to return 80% of the filing fee for Case # 3054-Modification – St. Germain, seconded by Peter. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:36 PM.