Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Taunton, MA 141 Oak Street, Taunton, MA 02780 ph: (508) 821­1000 12­10­15 mins. CITY OF TAUNTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 10, 2015 – 6:00 pm. (held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St, Taunton, Ma.) Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Wayne Berube, Steven Vieira, Michael Staples , Joseph Amaral, George Moniz and Steven Figueiredo. Meeting opens at 6:02 PM Chairman Ackerman explains the ZBA process. The petitioner presents their case then they hear from anyone in favor or opposed then they go back to the petitioner to address any of the opposition concerns, they do not go back & forth. Other Business: Green Pine Town Homes – Request to separate units. Need to determine if a minor or major change Chairman Ackerman read letter from owner requesting the change. Chairman Ackerman stated the proposal is have 5­7 feet between each unit which will not require sprinkler system. Chairman Ackerman stated in his opinion he thought it was a major change in that it will take up more room. The units will not be larger just spaced out. He thought it would move them closer to wetlands. Several Board members agreed it’s a major change. Wayne made motion to find proposed change a major change which requires a public hearing. Seconded by Mike. All in favor. Case #3301 Hawthorne Dev. Inc. Range Avenue (88­62­0) For: A Special Permit from 5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a triplex on lots 2 & 3 and a single family home on Lot 1 in a Highway Business District. For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, One Church Green, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Petition signed by 110 abutters Dane Rogers, 19 Range Ave., Taunton, Ma. Scott Rynhart, 125 Andrea Lane, Taunton, Ma. Diane Gallego, 934 Rocky Woods St, Taunton, Ma. David Lewis & Joan Proulx, 30 Range Ave., Taunton, Ma. Elizabeth DaRosa, 60 Pine Ridge Circle, Taunton, Ma. Atty. Brennan stated they are here tonight for the property on the corner of Range Avenue and Winthrop Street. They are proposing 3 lots on Range Avenue and the remaining lot fronting on Winthrop Street. The proposal is for a triplex on lots 2 & 3 and a single family on lot 1. The property is in the Highway Business Zone and double the required size. Lots 2 & 3 will be accessed by a common driveway. They were here 2 years ago for 6 lots with triplexes and was denied. They scaled down their proposal. Chairman Ackerman confirmed they were denied in October 2013. Chairman Ackerman asked if they could be all single family houses? Atty. Brennan stated the way they were going to place the triplexes were perpendicular with common driveway. He stated it’s only a short distance from Winthrop Street and it’s a drastic change from previous proposal. They scaled down 30% and put residential uses on Range Avenue and will hopefully develop lot fronting on Winthrop Street as commercial. Joe stated the sewer was just put in on Winthrop Street. He stated the tax that is put on to the landowners is unfair. Atty. Brennan stated they have marketing the lot on Winthrop Street for commercial but have been unsuccessful. Steve V. asked if the triplex would be rental or multifamily? Atty. Brennan stated they are contemplating condex units. He stated the lots are not consistent with what is on street. In favor: John McMahon, 545 Winthrop Street, lot across the street in Winthrop heights. Opposed: Scott Rynhart, 125 Andrea Lane. He is concerned with more people using road, section 8and how it will affect the neighborhood. He stated there is questionable activity going on at the former bowling alley property. Chairman Ackerman read Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., and Conservation Commission into the record. Atty. Brennan stated they could come back with strip mall, bus terminal, or other uses allowed by right in the Highway Business District. They would rather put residential along Range Avenue. He stated there are duplexes further up Range Avenue? Would the Board consider duplexes? He stated they could move house on lot 1 and address neighbor’s concerns. They have flexibility. The plan is to develop and sell at market rate. They meet all the zoning for Highway Business District. Joe asked how far back does the HBD run? It was confirmed all 3 lots are in the HBD. It was noted the betterment for sewer is based on frontage and is impressive. Wayne asked if single family works? The money doesn’t work from a business point of view. Joe stated he would prefer single family and move it away from Rogers property. Chairman Ackerman suggests amending application to 3 single family. Wayne suggests moving house on lot 1 for bigger setback. Chairman Ackerman stated he is listening to neighbors. Steve V. asked if Lot 3 would require conservation approval and they answered yes, a Notice of Intent. If they move back they would require a NOI but now as presented it won’t trigger NOI. John Garanito stated the intent was to show we can meet setbacks and they have the flexibility to move structures. David Lewis, 30 Range Ave. opposed. He spoke in opposition on previous petition for triplex. Some of the homes are being converted to business and this is a nice area of single family homes across the street, Winthrop Heights. He can attest it’s difficult to get out at times from Range Avenue. Opposed: Dane Rogers, 19 Range Avenue and owns 15 Range Avenue. He stated there are 64 homes in Winthrop Heights across Winthrop Street and there are all single family homes. He stated there is no need for more multifamily dwellings. He is ok with it being single family dwellings. He submitted petition signed by approx.. 83 abutters opposed to triplexes. Joe suggested wider buffer. Opposed: Diane Gallego, 834 Rocky Woods St. stated it’s too congested and there is no need for more multifamily dwellings. Wayne asked if she would be opposed to single family? She answers she didn’t want any house too close to corner. Opposed: Elizabeth DaRosa, 60 Pine Ridge Circle, stated it’s too narrow for more multifamily dwellings. She is ok with single family. Opposed: Joan Proulx, 30 Range Avenue stated the frontage in RRD 150 feet. She was informed the property is in the Highway Business District. She suggested minimizing greens pace and preserving residential neighborhood. She stated Section 3 of the ZBA and stated adding multifamily units will change the character of the neighborhood. Joe stated he was opposed to triplexes before and still is. He stated the taxed the City is imposing is making business close. Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions: Single family dwellings only on all lots. Place house as far back as possible without going into the 100 foot wetland buffer on lots 2 & 3. Place house on Lot 1 as far away as possible from Rogers property line while still conforming to sideline setback on other side. Vote: Ackerman, Staples, Vieira, Amaral, Berube, ......Yes Petition Granted Case #3298 Assoc. for Human Services 68 Allison Ave. For: A Variance from Section 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for a side setback of 20 feet (instead of 35’) and a Special Permit from Section 5.2 for the modification of Case # 2540 to allow a 6,413 square foot addition resulting in an increase in the building from 14,950 square feet to 21,363 square feet to be used as educational services. For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, One Church Green, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Brennan stated they re­advertised and now all set . They are requesting a setback variance for the existing Associates for Human Services. They were originally approved in 2003 and need more room. Letter from the B.O.H., City Planner and Conservation Commission was read into the record. Motion made and seconded to Grant as presented: Vote: Amaral, Staples, Moniz, Vieira, Ackerman…Yes Petition Granted Case #3302 Carloha Inc. 30 Sherwood Dr. For: A Special Permit from Section 5.2 of the Zoning to allow 3,300 square foot to the existing building for Auto Sales in an Industrial District. For the Petitioner: Atty. Matthew Costa, Gay & Gay, P.C., P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma. . Wei (David) Wu, 1035 Old Country Rd., Westbury, N.Y. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Costa explains his client is asking for auto sales but everything will be done on­line and no storage. He stated all transactions are conducted through the website. His client finds vehicles and picks them up and then delivers them. There will be no parking of vehicles or customers coming to the site. There will be no change to the neighborhood. They will need to go to Council for license. Mike asked if there will be any storage outside? Atty. Costa answers no they will have small office and no vehicle parts, no repairs. They will be fine with restriction no storage outside. Atty. Costa stated they have business in other area and it works fine. They have cars delivered, test drive and if there is any problem they get their money back. Atty. Costa stated his client doesn’t own building, but the ventilation is there for uses as manufacture. No one in favor or opposed. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., and Conservation Commission into the record. Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions: All storage and display of vehicles will be INSIDE the building according to the proposal. No Repairs of autos or auto parts allowed. Vote: Ackerman, Staples, Amaral, Berube, ......Yes Vieira…………………………………………..No  Petition Granted Case #3303 Rocky Knoll West ARCAP, LC Dunbar St.( 45­143) For: A Variance from Sec. 11.1 for the expansion of the existing mobile home park (Rocky Knoll Estates) by allowing 9 additional mobile home lots. For the Petitioner: Atty. Matthew Costa, Gay & Gay, P.C., P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma. In favor: Petition signed by 86 residents in favor. Opposed: Richard Hamel, 81 Dunbar St., Taunton, Ma. Mike Burke, 105 Amhurst St., Taunton, Ma. Kimberly Parmenter, 207 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Costa stated this is a 6.1 acre parcel of land owned by Rocky Knoll Mobile Home Park. This lot is not part of the park so it’s not grandfathered. Atty. Costa stated the park is grandfathered which was allowed in a Suburban Residential District now in Rural Residential District. This lot is in common ownership but not part of the park. They still need to go to the P.B. for approval for the additional mobile home units which will require more detailed plans. They have proposed water main down Dunbar Street through this parcel which will improve water pressure. The proposal is to offset the cost of the improved water line by adding more units to the park. Otherwise they would have to have the residents of the park bear the costs of the improvements. Atty. Costa stated by expanding the park the can improve the existing water problems without adding the costs to the residents of the park. Chairman Ackerman read the letter from the Conservation Commission which says its not conservation friendly and there may be issues regarding Natural Heritage. He is aware they cannot disturb wetlands. Joe asked about the SP granted in 2003 which allowed this piece to be removed from the park. Atty. Costa stated it was previously requested to remove 6.13 acres from the park for a single family dwelling but that never happened. They wanted to run a driveway along wetland but it was too evasive. He stated Natural Heritage scaled down the request due to salamanders. Atty. Costa stated they are asking for 9 homes now but it can be changed by Natural Heritage. He stated they want to use this opportunity to fix the existing water main and not make park owners pay for capital expenses. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, B.O.H., Water and DPW into the record. No one in favor. Opposed: Mike Burke, 193 Tremont Street, (105 Amherst St.) stated 2 years ago the director came around and everyone signed leases and they explained they would never be changed capital improvements. He thinks that is the list of abutters in favor you have based on no capital expenses beared to the residents. He stated the adult retirement community had meeting yesterday. He stated the water pressure and water quality is bad. They had water flushed 4 separate times, and it’s not only the park but on Dunbar Street. Sewer is a constant problem in the park. When Dr. Thayer owned the park it was nice, now the rent has increased from $205 to $478. He stated the Director of Operations said they would not be charged capital expenses. He stated it’s a55 & over community but the average age is late 60’s early 70’s. Opposed: Richard Hamel, 81 Dunbar Street stated the water pressure comes and goes. The Water Dept. has one meter for a 900 foot long line. He stated the reason there is no singe family house on this lot is because of the wetlands. He stated Dunbar has a 10” water line and Tremont has a 8”water line. He stated there is clay and ledge there. In 2003 there were 144 units and 2006 they were approved for 17 additional mobile home units. His biggest concern is the water pressure. Opposed: Kimberly Parmenter, 207 Tremont St. stated she has lived there for 43 years. She stated she never opposed when they wanted to expand. But now they are going to disturb the tree frogs, turtles, and bunnies. She stated when Thayer owned it they were cutting on her property in the fenced area. She is not in favor of adding to the park. Atty. Costa stated this is one of the best kept properties in the City. The park takes pride in their park and the grounds are meticulous. He stated the Manger of the Park never made representation to the residents that there would be no capital improvements passed onto them. The plans that were presented to the park residents were the same one here tonight. The proposed solution to the water problem would be less than $500 a month. He is aware they are on fixed incomes. They don’t want to have to pass the cost of the improvements onto the residents. The improvements would also improve the water on Dunbar Street. Atty. Costa stated the single family house wasn’t built because of the wetlands. Atty. Costa stated the hardship due to the shape of the wetlands and they can use upland in back. Atty. Costa state there is nothing to make Ms. Parmenter happy. Joe stated there are a lot of issues and based on the Conservation Commission’s letter they should probably consider scaling it down. Atty. Costa stated we are here tonight for the concept for use and they will need to go to Conservation Commission. Steve V. stated they submitted petition signed by residents in favor. He asked if there were any agreements He asked what kind of guarantee do they have, he asked if they could publically state what guarantee do they have? Atty. Costa stated they have no formal agreement but publically they are stating it. Wayne stated they elluded to the fact that water & sewer improvements would be done with no capital expense by the residents of the park. Joe suggested eliminate Lot 4 closes to the Hamel property. Robert Rubaday, Director of Operations stated he is offended that they are accusing him of something he did not say. He is the only one at the tenant meetings and he never told them there would be no capital improvement. He stated they had meeting last night and showed the plans to see if we could get it approved and perhaps not pass cost to tenants. The residents had some issues. He stated he said if not approved there might be a capital improvements passed to them. Steve St. Martin and Al Delude from the park are always in the park and take pride in the park. Steve V. asked if they went over costs and he answered no. Mike state if approved under this concept there would be no costs passed to tenants and he answered yes. Steve V. made motion to eliminate Lot #4, resulting in 8 additional mobile home units, seconded by Joe. Wayne stated it was originally approved in 2003 and then in 2006 received approval for 17 additional lots. Wayne stated it’s against the spirit of the Board for the addition of more units. The recent approval created a lot of issues. He is not pleased with the location of the units. He stated there are a lot of elderly that reside in park and he doesn’t want to force increase in rent. Chairman Ackerman stated they allowed expansion before but this to just too much. It does not seem like the planned this just picked a number. They have to consider the rest of the residents on Dunbar Street. Motion made and seconded to grant as Amended. Vote: Ackerman, Vieira, Amaral, Berube, ......No Staples…………………………………………Yes  Petition Denied Case #3292 Rose­Nixon Woodbine Street (Map 64 lots 142­146, 148­ 155, Map 65 Lots 480 – 482, 486­488) For: A Variance from Sections 6.2 & 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance for 12 unbuildable lots on Woodbine Street to be buildable without having the required lot area, minimum dry area, frontage, lot width, side & front setbacks on property on Assessor’s Map 64 Lots 142­ 146, 148­155; Map 65 Lots 480­ 482, 484, 486­488 on Woodbine Street. For the Petitioner: Atty. John­Paul Thomas, 98 County St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Karen Claudio, 39 Woodbine St., Taunton, Ma. Kiel Fernandes, 27 Oak Ave., Taunton, Ma. .Bob McClellan, woodbine Street. Elizabeth Cabral, purchasing 16.5 Belvoir Ave., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Thomas states they continued from last month and based on the recommendation of the Board combined lots and now are asking for approval of 10 lots (instead of 12). He stated they took 2 lots on Oak Ave and combined and added more square footage and opened the lots up across the street. Wayne stated he drove by and the rink need to be removed and anything would be an improvement. He asked if the Roadway Improvement Plan would include Vinson Street? George likes the way they combined lot and made bigger and now only 10. Joe asked about Lot 2 and the abutter and perhaps they could move house closer to lot 3. Chairman Ackerman likes the changes. No one in favor. Opposed Karen Claudio, 34 Woodbine Street agrees the roller rink must come down. She asked how wide would the roadway improvement be? She stated if you combine Lots 2 & 3 you would not need a variance. She is concerned when they tear building down of what pests will be in area. She knows they will be required to have standard bait traps. Opposed: Kiel Fernandes, 27 Oak St., stated the new plans looks much nicer than original plans. He doesn’t agree that they will be building houses worth $344,000 on these small lots. He understands the applicant wants to get money for land but they could with 4 lots. He wants reassurance his home value is not going to be affected. Wayne stated they cannot control market. Steve F. stated the current building is dilapidated and need to come down. They will all remain single family. Opposed: Bob McClellan, stated the Board asked them to combine lots 8,9,10 & 11 into 3 equal size lot. Why didn’t they do that? He asked if Woodbine Street is going all the way through . Joe stated the Planning Board approves the Roadway Improvement Plans. Opposed: Elizabeth Cabral she is buying Joseph Pratt’s house. She was told they were going to clear cut the lots. She wants them to save as many trees as possible. Atty. Thomas stated they will need to cut some trees but not from property line to property line. They will leave as much as possible. He stated the lots on the end will most likely be serviced by septic. Motion made and seconded to grant as amended with the following conditions: Lots to be serviced by municipal sewer and water if feasible. All lots allowed a building permit prior to the approval of the Roadway Improvement Plans subject to the Building Inspector. Lots on end (Lots 4, 5 & 10) most likely will have septic systems if sewer is not feasible. Single family dwelling only on all lots. Moniz, Berube, Ackerman, Amaral, Staples…..Yes Petition Granted Meeting adjourned at 9:02 PM