Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF TAUNTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 11, 2017 – 6:00 pm. (held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St, Taunton, Ma.) Members Present: Wayne Berube, Steven Vieira, Michael Staples , George Moniz and Joseph Amaral. Meting opens at 6:05 PM Joe made motion to accept minutes of April 13, 2017 seconded by Wayne, All in favor. Acting Chairman Vieira explains the ZBA process. They hear presentation from petitioner, hear opposition and in favor and then go back to petitioner to answer any questions. They do not go back and forth. Case # 3382 Coelho 1149 Somerset Ave. For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 24’ x 28’ garage having a 15 foot front yard setback (instead of 25’) For the Petitioner: Jeff Coelho, 1149 Somerset Ave., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Julieanne Wade, 24 Silverwood Dr., Taunton, Ma. Deborah Carr, 175 Partridge Circle, Taunton, Ma. Joe asked if any changes were made to the plan.? Steve stated the City Engineer submitted letter relative to the easement and they read letter from John DeLano. Wayne asked if they were able to move garage 5 or 10 feet? He drove by and it’s a pretty dominant building you are constructing. Mr. Coelho stated they are trying to stay within a budget and if they moved it they would be forced to bring fill in and re-construct whole back yard. Steve pointed out the road slopes towards Somerset Avenue and if they move garage it would create financial hardship to the petitioner. George asked if perhaps they could possibly move garage 5 feet? Opposed: Julieanne Wade , 24 Silverwood Dr. stated the backyard is flat so she doesn’t know why he said he has to re-construct it. In her opinion the proposed garage will obstruct visibility. Deborah Carr, 175 Partridge Circle asked the Board what reason as they going to use as a hardship if they were to grant a variance? She stated no other house has building that close to road. Joe stated the original plan shows easement but that was for the original subdivision. Wayne stated the hardship is that the petitioner would have to cut trees, re-construct his backyard in order to place a garage without any variance. He stated the hardship, in his opinion, his directly relating to the topography of the lot. Mr. Coelho stated the neighbor’s site line is not going to be obstructed. It was suggested moving the garage about 5 feet and the petitioner stated they could do that. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented with the following condition: 1  1. Move the garage back 5 feet resulting in a 20 foot front setback from Silverwood Dr. Vote: Amaral, Correira, Staples, Berube...Yes Vieira ........................................................No Petition Granted Case # 3376 Perrault – Park View Realty Trust 31 South St. A Variance from Section 440 -602 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance for 2 dwellings on one lot and a Special Permit from Section 440-503 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance for the alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming Multi Family Use from a 2 family to a 3 family (consisting of 2 family dwelling and a detached guest home) to a 3 family use by converting the guest house to a third dwelling unit. For the Petitioner: Atty. Matthew Costa, Gay & Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Case # 3384 Thomas Goward Rd. Prop. I.D. 20-5) A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 & 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 3 lots with each lot having 0 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 150’ frontage & 100’ lot width) but having access via a right of way, on premises situated on Goward Road, Taunton, Ma. on Assessor’s Map 20-5. Atty Thomas requested a continuance until next month. He waives the time frame on which to act on this proposal. Motion made and seconded to grant request for a continuance until next month. All in favor. Petition continued to June 8, 2017 Chairman Ackerman presides over meeting and explains the ZBA process. They hear presentation from petitioner, hear opposition and in favor and then go back to petitioner to answer any questions. They do not go back and forth. Case # 3388 Gimler 62 Shores St. A Special Permit from Section 440-503 & Section 440 Attachment #1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming structure by allowing a conversion of a 2 family to a 3 family. For the Petitioner: Atty. Matthew Costa, Gay & Gay, P.C., P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None 2 Atty. Costa stated his client a strong record of renovation homes. He purchased the property in 2011 and in Case # 2767 in 2006 approval was given for a 3 family but an occupancy permit was never obtained and now must start over again. The property was represented by the broker as a 3 family. The building department informed them the would need to seek zoning approval in order to obtain an Occupancy Permit. The building has been renovated and brought up to code with sprinklers. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission and Engineer into the record. No one appearing in favor or opposed. Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following condition: 1. Must provide some kind of turn-around at the end of the parking area to prevent vehicles from backing into Shores Street. Vote: Berube, Amaral, Vieira, Correira, Ackerman ….....….Yes Petition Granted Case # 3389 Kay, Buchek, Cornell & Nadeau 250 Williams St. A Variance from Section 440 -602A & 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance for the re-configuration of 3 lots into two lots. Lots 126 & 127 combined having 82.46’ of frontage & lot width (instead of 125’frontage & 100’ lot width) with 26,400 sq. ft. lot area (instead of 30,000 sq. ft.) Lot 123 having the existing dwelling with 82.46’ of frontage & lot width (instead of 100’ lot width & 125’ of frontage) with 8,800 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 30,000 sq. ft of lot area & 22,500 sq. ft. dry area) and having 28% maximum lot coverage (instead of 20%) with a sideline setback of 3.43’ (instead of 15’) for property located at 250 Williams Street, Taunton, Ma. (Property I.D. 94-123, 94-126 & 94-127) For the Petitioner: Atty. William Rosa, Wynn & Wynn, 90 New State Highway, Raynham, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Bertrand Gallant, 256 Williams St., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Rosa stated this is the same petitioner that was granted in 2013 but unfortunately it expired. They did per testing and septic system but now need new variance. In 1997 the lot was unique and it would be a substantial financial hardship if they were denied. Bartow Street is a paper street and there are no wetlands on the property. Joe asked if the existing house is owned by family and it was answered it’s rented. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission, City Engineer and B.O.H. into the record. They need new updated Title V for septic. Opposed: Bertrand Gallant, 256 Williams St. stated in 2013 they received approval and he didn’t know what detriment it would be until they cut all trees down. Barstow Street is a private street and they are proposing to put driveway on Barstow Street. He cut 15 pine trees and now he has drainage problems on his lot. He found out that those trees absorb water and now that he cut them he has water coming into his basement. He spoke to contractor to have the owner call him so they can talk but he never called. Chairman Ackerman at this time told him the City Engineer reviewed the plans when applying for 3 building permit to ensure no increase in drainage runoff. Mr. Gallant contact Paul White in the Building Dept. and got him to remove some old tires and asked him to remove truck. Then he cut all trees down. Joe stated the City officials need to know he cut all the trees down on the paper street. It was suggested getting letter from Building Dept. and DPW in regards to tree cutting. Mr. Gallant stated since he cut trees his basement has flooded and he never had that before. Atty. Rosa stated in 2013 he received approval and his client removed some trees. He cited the law on paper streets and what rights to abutters have. He was within his right to remove trees and he can put a driveway on paper street as long as he doesn’t block anyone else from using paper street. Joe asked if he cut trees on his part of the paper street and it was answered yes. Joe suggests continuing to get some guidance on what rules applies to paper streets? Chairman Ackerman stated he would not for a driveway off a paper street. He recommends putting condition that driveway if off of Williams Street. After more discussion the Board decided to continue this to get some guidance from the City Engineer on paper street and who has rights to what? It was suggested petitioner should reach out to neighbor. Motion made and seconded to continue until next month. Show location of house and driveway on plans. Also request information from the City Engineer on issue of paper street and what rights to abutters have. Vote: Berube, Amaral, Ackerman, Vieira, Correira …..….Yes Petition continued to next month. Case # 3383 Dixon One Lawton Ave. A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Auto Parts, Sales and Service with Incidental Repair (1,978 sq. ft.) and Offices (1,006 sq. t.) For the Petitioner: Tim Dixon, 133 Reynolds Ave., Rehoboth, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Tim says the building has always been used for commercial purposes. It has been used for a lawn mower shop, repair shop and a beauty shop. There are overhead TMLP wires that run over to the skating rink in the rear. Joe asked what kind of business will this be? Tim answers they will be re-building starts and alternators. Taunton Auto Electric will be the tenant and there will be no outside activity at all. Wayne asked if this was the placed that had all the lawn mowers outside and Tim answered yes. He has been cleaning up since 2015. letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission and Board of Health into the record. Tim spoke to the City Engineer and he can shorten the parking spaces to 9 x 18 and angle the spaces. Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following condition: 1. Make the parking spaces 9’ x 18’ and angled. 4 Vote: Berube, Amaral, Ackerman, Correira, Staples …..….Yes Petition Granted Case # 3386 Lima 429 Tremont St. A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 & 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 3 lots without having the required frontage, lot width and shape factor. Lot 1 having the existing 2-family house with 85’ of frontage (instead of 150’) 75’ of lot width (instead of 100”) and a shape factor of 132 (instead of 35) Lot 2 & Lot 3 having 25’ of frontage & lot width (instead of 150’ frontage & 100’ of lot width) and Lot 2 with a shape factor of 51 (instead of 35) Lot 3 with a shape factor of 46 (instead of 35) For the Petitioner: Jeff Tallman, SITEC, Inc., 449 Faunce Corner Rd., Dartmouth, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Gordon & Donna Chappell, 427 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Larry & Carol Wilkerson, 431 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Tami Swenson, representing Aunt & uncle Darrell Borges, 441 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. David Borges, 447 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Jeff & Lisa Bagge, 383 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Joseph Conlon, 397 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Joel & Virginia Sears, 297 Tremont Street, Taunton, Ma. Robert Fierra, rep. Annie Zaczkiewicz, 410 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. George & Alice Dunn, 438 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Michael & Deborah Carver, 386 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. John White, 476 Tremont St, Taunton, Ma. Michelle DeVoe, 383 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Scott Reed, 433 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Vincent Beaudoin, 414 Tremont St., Taunton, Ma. Deborah Carr, 175 Partridge Circle, Taunton, Ma. Jeff stated this lot was created in 1925 and house 427 and 431 was also created. In 1925 #427 was built and due the configuration of the lot in 1925 in created a hardship. There is a small portion of wetlands on the property. You would expect 3 houses can go on this large parcel but due to the shape of the lot is cannot because of frontage. This is unconventional in nature. The irregular shape of lot 1 with existing house is an attempt to comply with the lot size requirements. The approval of this configuration will allow full potential of the property. Chairman Ackerman pointed out the configuration of lot 1 and he would never approve a lot shaped like that. He suggests either cutting in off and perhaps deeding it out to neighbors or having no cut zone. Chairman Ackerman stated this is a separate owner than Frazier Pasture Farm Subdivision. He stated he knows there residents on Frazier Pasture Farm who has issues but this is a different applicant. Jeff stated Lot 1 has the existing house on it and the back landwill not be useable, they just configured it that to comply. He stated the back parts of Lots 2 & 3 they could put 5 no cut zone to act as buffer to Borges. Opposed: Tami Swenson on behalf of her uncle, stated he just bought the property. She doesn’t think this fits in the neighborhood. Wayne stated the P&S states subject to obtaining building permits. Carol Wilkerson, 431 Tremont Street said she had privacy and is worried about the driveways and the children in the area. Chairman Ackerman suggests cutting off some land from Lot 2 because it ‘s their intention not to us it. Wayne stated if they are going to re-configure the parcel tonight then it’s not ready for a vote tonight. Jeff stated certain portion of the land is restricted. No one in favor. Opposed: Donna & Gordon Chappell, 427 Tremont Street There would be a house in their backyard and they pointed out there is clay base soul. They stated there is a pond in yard and probably would need sump pumps. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Engineer, City Planner and Conservation Commission into the record. Opposed: Opposed: Darrell Borges, 441 Tremont St., stated is an easy no vote. He asks the Board to look at the proposal and the zoning ordinance. Darrell submitted letters from abutter opposed. He stated the proposal is unconventional and asks the Board to deny. He stated the proposal does not fit into the neighborhood. The rural residential district requires 150 feet of frontage and they are trying to squeeze in these lots. He stated the applicant doesn’t live here and has not even spoke to any neighbors. He brought to the Board’ s attention the house on left, #431 is not shown on plans probably because it’s so close. Opposed: David Borges, 447 Tremont Street is opposed to any development out there. They are creating their own hardship and referenced some course cases. Chairman Ackerman at this time stated the Board determines if in their opinion, is a hardship. David stated he spent about $5,000 for his driveway. Dan Chappell, son of Gordon Chappell stated the property is wetland and this proposal does not fit in with the neighborhood. Opposed: Chad Wilkinson & Brenda Pereira, 70 Frazier Pasture Farm Rd. stated this is no consistent with the neighborhood. Deborah Carr, 175 Partridge Circle read the definition of Rural Residential District and this proposal is not consistent with that. It was stated the ZBA exists to change or give waiver of the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Carr stated they the ZBA grants more cases then denies. Chairman Ackerman answered they have lost only about 10 cases in court. Ms. Carr stated many people don’t appeal because its too expensive. There was some discussion about how the ZBA takes into account all the testimony and they then vote on each case on its own merits. Opposed: Jeff & Lisa Bagge, 387 Tremont Street stated the land is landlocked and shouldn’t be built on. Opposed: Scott Reed, 433 Tremont St. 433 Tremont Street, asks the Board to vote their opinion and take into consideration the neighborhood, no one wants this. Jeff stated there are wetlands in the vicinity but they would have to have drainage approved by the City Engineer. He stated he did not show the abutter house location because this was on a field survey, it was not on purpose. They could possibly have a shared driveway. They are proposing 2 single family dwellings as opposed to a Definitive Subdivision. He stated it would be a much greater impact if they did a Definitive Subdivision. They are approx.. 275 feet way from abutting houses. They have reviewed the soils and it appears there is decent soils. Jeff stated the lot (s) were created in 1925 so we didn’t create the hardship. He stated that in 1999 Mr. Wilkerson built his house 8 feet from the property line? Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: 6 Vote: Berube, Staples, Ackerman, Vieira, Correira …..….No Petition Denied Case # 3390 Gulf Resources Inc. 1925 & 1939 Bay St. A Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment #2 of the Zoning Ordinance for the construction of an automobile filling station with a drive-through in a Business District on premises situated at 1925 & 1939 Bay Street, Taunton, Ma. For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, One Church Green, Taunton, Ma. Jamie Bissonnette, Vanasse & Associates Inc., 35 New England Business Center Dr., Ste. 140, Andover, Ma. Bernie Gould, Traffic Study Engineer, Vanasse & Associates Inc., 35 New England Business Center Dr., Ste. 140, Andover, Ma. William Baird, PE, LSP, WEB Eng., Assoc. Inc., In favor: Jeff Isidorio, 27 County St., Taunton, Ma. Scott & Kerrin Handrahan, 1939 Bay St., Taunton, Ma. Thaddeus Figlock, 236 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma. Ariel Leonard, 21 W. Weir St., Taunton, Ma. Dick Shafer, Part Time Project Manager, Mass. Dev. Jim Baer, 28 Worcester St. Taunton, Ma. Letter from Richard Ricciardi, TDC. Opposed: Richard Pimentel, 21 Erin Dr., Taunton, Ma. Bob & Catherine Kahler,46 Erin Dr., Taunton, Ma. Laurie Falcone, 1737 Bay St., Taunton, Ma. Dorothy Morrissey, 14 Field St., Taunton, Ma. Bill Faria, 38 Dublin Dr., Taunton, Ma. Paula Calhoun, 10 Field St., Taunton, Ma. Bob Jordan, 18 Erin Dr., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Brennan stated they are proposing to build a 4,280 square foot retail plaza with gasoline filling station on with drive-up window. This property was just recently subject of a zoning change by the Municipal Council. Under the zoning there are many uses that can go in as a matter of right. He stated the drive-thru & gasoline station triggers zoning approval. They are proposing 4 duel pumps ( 8 stations) on concrete pad. They have conducted a very extensive traffic study of which was submitted as part of this submittal. The proposed tanks will be double wall and have to comply with local and state regulations. Chairman Ackerman at this time asked for a cop of the P&S Agreement. Atty. Brennan stated he didn’t think it was required and he said both owners have signed the application. Chairman Ackerman stated this Board has always wanted the P& S, he suggests blocking out purchase price but it’s required. Atty. Brennan stated it’s a private 7 contract and doesn’t think it’s pubic record. Chairman Ackerman at this time suggests he would vote no if a P&S wasn’t produced. There as some discussion back & forth and then Atty. Brennan stated he will provide a copy. Atty. Brennan stated the property was zoned residential and now it’s Business District which allows certain uses to go in, some without zoning approval some with. Joe stated the neighbors were made aware of the zoning change and there was a lot of discussion if this is the most appropriate site for a gasoline filling station. The zoning change allowed this to come to the Board tonight as a Special Permit instead of a variance. Joe stated everything is now in the Business District and certain uses are allowed as a matter of right. They can put retail in without coming for zoning approval, just Site Plan Review with Board. Wayne stated the corner is currently residences. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, B.O.H. and City Engineer into the record. It was stated the landscaping buffer can be reduced 50% by the DIRB. George asked what the width of the entrances are? Jamie stated it’s a 30 foot entrance with 32’ radius. It was suggested widening the entrance to 40 feet so trucks can enter easy. The pumps are in front and there is a by-pass lane around the drive-thru and they have provided landscaping. The lights will be mounted and will be LED. They will sign the fuel station and there will be 8 fuel station for domestic vehicles and 2 for diesel . Joe suggests eliminating back area and put tanks there. He asked if they needed a certain building size? Atty. Brennan stated they exceed the frontage, lot area and lot coverage under the zoning. Joe asked what is the actual useable lot size (minus the tanks, back area etc)? they did not calculate that. George stated the tanks are protected but is it counted towards the impervious area? Atty. Brennan answers the tanks are above ground and it not that uncommon to landscape around them. Jamie stated the tanks would be put in back and would unload. The Board suggests moving use back for more parking. Wayne asked how big are the tanks? William Baird, Reg Eng., LPS stated they have to comply with FDA regulation regarding tanks and setbacks. The size of the tanks are 40,000 total (20,000 reg., 10,000 premium and 10,000 diesel) It was suggests having two 5,000 tanks for diesel? George asked how do they fill tanks? There is a 6 foot slope below grade and the tanker trucks. Each individual tank has their own piping and the vapers are almost nothing. Chairman Ackerman stated the diesel area has mechanism that stops fumes. The trucks will come in at 5:00 AM and midnight to fill tanks 7 days. They have spill prevention plans and they have a response company with instructions on what to do in case of spill. George asked if the tanks sat on concrete pad and it was answered yes and they are monitored and the alarms goes off if fails. George asked if there would be ballards around tank and they stated it will have chain link fencing. Chairman Ackerman asked about drainage and they have explains how the drainage works. Bernie Gould, Vanasse Assoc, gave extensive traffic report. The traffic study showed a traffic signal light is not warranted . The data showed the traffic at this intersection does not warrant a light per the State . Joe asked how many customers a day do they think they will have? There will be 2,500 vehicle trips increase for a total of 946 new vehicle trips. This site is already at a level F for service. Steve questions the number of accidents went up at Field & Bay Street based on the study. The Board has concerns with the results of the traffic study and how much it showed it would increase. In favor: Letter from Louis Ricciardi, TDC, Ariel Leonard, 21 W .Weir St. stated she travels this area frequent and a gas station is needed. Thadeus Figlock, 236 Winthrop St.also in favor. He’s a salesman and he agrees a gas station is needed in this area. Jeff 8 Isidorio 27 County St.,also in favor. Scott Handrahan, Kerrin Handrahan, Jim Baker, 28 Worcester St., Dick Shafer, Project Mgr, Mass.Deve. in favor. Opposed: Richard Pimental, 21 Erin Dr., stated there has been 3 deaths here and a lot of accidents and this is a bad area. His mailbox has been hit 3 times. Brian stated he would not vote for a gas station here. Bob & Cathy Kehler, 46 Erin Dr., stated Bay Street is a race track. IT takes them 10 minutes to get out of their driveway and when trucks goes by their house shakes. Opposed: Bob Jordan, 18 Erin Dr., Laurie Falcone, 1737 Bay St. there are too many accidents. This proposal is very unrealistic. Chairman Ackerman there will be more accidents as a result of the people fueling up. Opposed: Brenda Hebert, 27 Crane Ave, Dorothy Morrissey, 14 Field St. opposed and had concerns because she has auto immune disease. She stated in the P.B. minutes there was much discussion on traffic. Bill Faria 38 Dublin Drive is concerned with fencing and he thinks the fencing should be move. Opposed: Paula Calhoun, 10 Field St., Rod Palmer, 53 Meadow St., also opposed. Atty. Brennan stated we expect an increase in traffic. This proposal will provide a much needed service. He stated you are going to get something in this area. This is the best commercial use. There is a long list of things allowed by right under the zoning ordinance and this is the best use. Atty. Brennan stated they have submitted very well engineered plans and an extensive traffic study showing hard facts. According to the DOT the traffic fell on the low end of dangerous intersections. The Board discussed it being a residential area and the back side of an established residential neighborhood. There is a historical cemetery in close proximity and there is an auction place. Wayne stated he cannot support a filling station at this location. Joe states the service is needed in this area but there are too many unanswered questions. He has no problem with retail here but cannot support a filling station. His has safety concerns and he thinks it belongs at the BJ’s lot. George agrees it should be in the commercial plaza with BJ;s. This is an old town neighborhood and he’s very uneasy about the above ground tanks. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Vote: Berube, Vieira, Correira, Amaral, Ackerman …..….No Petition Denied Case # 3385 Garanito 32 Greystone St A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 and 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into 2 lots without having the required 100 feet of frontage & lot width (each lot having 75’ of frontage & lot width) on premise situated at 32 Greystone Street, Taunton, Ma. For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, One Church Green, Taunton, Ma. In favor: Marco Azevedo, 2 Cranesbill Rd., Taunton, Ma. Opposed: Jack Barbour, 9 Greystone St., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Brennan stated the existing house burned about 10 years ago and they wish to raze and construct new house. They are proposing to divide the lot into two lots. They were considering duplex but would rather build 2 single family dwellings. The property is on the corner of Greystone Street and Cornell Avenue. But due to the topography they 9 cannot develop Cornell Avenue. Chairman Ackerman stated by right they can build a duplex. He stated there is one new house going up and it looks nice. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the City Planner, Conservation Commission and B.O.H; into the record. In favor Marco Azevedo, 2 Cranesbill Road stated he’s sick of looking at old dilapidated and this will look nice. The applicant is doing a great job cleaning up the property. Opposed: Jack Barbour, 9 Greystone St., stated the house burned in 2013 and the contractor has been filling in wetland. He stated he called the office spoke to an associate and was informed they wanted to build 2 single family houses. He didn’t know if they had permission from the Conservation Commission about filling in wetlands? Atty. Brennan stated the topography of this lot is the hardship. Cornell Avenue has a drop and there are wetlands in the area. John Garanito stated he has 5 permits pulled for what is going out there. He filled in some land and has the appropriate permits and approvals. It was asked about what he would be doing with the remaining land and he answered no more than 4 units. Motion made and seconded to Grant as Presented: Vote: Berube, Amaral, Ackerman, Vieira, Correira …..….Yes Petition Granted Colby excused at 11:22 PM Case # 3387 deMatos 6 Kilmer Ave. A Variance from Section A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 and 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into two lots that have merged for zoning purposes. Parcel 65-597 having 91.15’ of frontage (instead of 100’) with 70’ of lot width (instead of 100’) and lot size of 5,664 (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) with a minimum dry area of 5664 sq.ft.(instead of 11,250 sq.ft.) and parcel I.D. 65-599 having 6,000 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 15,000 sq.ft. of lot area & 11,250 sq. ft. of dry area) for the construction of a single family dwelling on premises known parcel I.D. 65-597 and 65-599 on Oak Street, Taunton, Ma. For the Petitioner: Atty. John-Paul Thomas, 98 County St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Ben Luk, 81 Oak St., Taunton, Ma. Anthony & Jen Spencer, 79 Oak St., Taunton, Ma. Deborah Carr, 175 Partridge Circle, Taunton, Ma. Atty. Thomas said the petitioner is semi-retired and wishes to build a single family dwelling on this lot. At one time there were 2 separate tax bills for this property. Chairman Ackerman read a letters from the Board of Health, Conservation Commission and City Planner into the record. Joe asked if the existing house is a 3 family and Atty. Thomas answers yes. There used to be a business in there. Joe thought it was still a 10 store. Atty. Thomas stated there is plenty of land and enough parking. They will single family house there and it will clean up the trash that is currently on site. The fencing will remain. Opposed: Deborah Carr, 175 Partridge Circle asked which lot it was and asked if it merged for zoning purposes. It was answered yes it merged and she asked they obide by the Urban Residential District requirements. Opposed: Jenn & Anthony Spencer, 79 oak St., stated the house will be too close busy street. Opposed: Ben Luk, 81 Oak St. says the lot is next to Fire station. He doesn’t think this is the right spot for the semi-retired couple to reside due to safety and busy street. He stated the lot is currently covered with poison ivy and he doesn’t think the petitioner should put house there. Atty. Thomas stated the lots have merged for zoning purposes but has received separate tax bills. Motion made and seconded to Grant with the following condition: 1. Lot must be serviced by Municipal Water & Sewer. Vote: Berube, Amaral, Ackerman, Moniz, Staples…..….Yes Petition Granted Cont’d Case # 2468C Green Pine Town Homes 171 Hart St. For: A Modification of a Comprehensive Permit (entitled “Green Pine Town Homes) - located at 171 Hart Street (property I.D. 94-169 -1) pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 40B, Section 20-23 – Modifications are: Reduction of units from 49 to 48, Proposing 15 feet separation between units, Re-design of detention basin. Removal of impact fee for market rates ($1,200) Relocation of clubhouse , Clarification of responsibility of developer for various fees & construction costs. APPLICANT REQUESTING TO WITHDRAW HIS REQUEST. Motion made and seconded to allow petitioner to withdraw his request. Vote: Vieira, Berube, Ackerman, Staples, Amaral....... .Yes Petition withdrawn OTHER BUSINESS: SET SUMMER SCHEDULE – July or August meeting Discussion held and it was voted to keep July meeting as schedule and with discuss August meeting at next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:40 PM 11 12 13 14 15